Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
huly-mcp-selfhost

huly-mcp-selfhost

by JoKeks2023
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

remove_label

Destructive

Removes a specified label from a Huly issue using workspace, issue ID, and label name to keep issue categorization accurate.

Instructions

Remove a label from an issue

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>",
      "identifier": "<identifier>",
      "labelName": "<labelName>"
    },
    "name": "remove_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelNameYes
workspaceYes
identifierYesIssue id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.5.1

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description only needs to add context — and it adds none. It does not say whether removal is idempotent, what happens if the label is absent, or what permissions are required, all of which matter for a destructive mutation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. Nothing can be trimmed without losing the core purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, three-parameter mutation with no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description is too thin: it leaves identifier format, workspace scope, and failure behavior unspecified. An agent would have to guess at invocation details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33%: only 'identifier' is documented (as 'Issue id'). The description restates label/issue concepts but adds no format, scoping, or lookup semantics for 'workspace' and 'labelName', leaving two of three parameters undefined in both schema and prose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Remove a label from an issue") that plainly separates it from sibling add_label/create_label by verb semantics. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The verb 'remove' implies the usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., does the label need to exist, does the issue need to be in the given workspace), and no named alternative for related operations such as replace/update labels.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools