gitlab-api

Create label

gitlab_create_label

Create a new GitLab label with a specified name, color, and description for a project.

Instructions

Create a new label.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gitlab_create_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`name`	No
`color`	No
`new_name`	No
`project_id`	No
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv27.3.13Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of required permissions, duplicate-name behavior, or whether the call is scoped to a project or a group.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The single sentence is short, but it is under-specified rather than concise — there is no wasted text because there is almost no text at all.

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

Completeness1/5

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

A six-parameter mutation tool with zero parameter documentation, no required-field information, and no output schema demands far more explanation than one four-word sentence provides.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Six parameters with 0% schema description coverage and no required fields, yet the description names none of them. It is especially unhelpful because the schema contains both "name" and "new_name" (the latter typical of an update), with nothing to disambiguate them.

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

Purpose2/5

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

"Create a new label" restates the tool name (gitlab_create_label) and title ("Create label") almost verbatim, adding only the word "new". It never says what a label attaches to (project vs. group) or how it differs from gitlab_update_label or gitlab_get_label.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this versus gitlab_update_label, gitlab_get_labels, or gitlab_delete_label, and no mention of prerequisites such as a project/group context. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server