create_labelCreate a named label in a project, optionally with a hex color and description, to classify and filter work items.
Create a label in a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Label name. | |
| color | No | Hex color, e.g. "#ff4444". | |
| project_id | Yes | Project UUID. | |
| description | No | Optional label description. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation ('Create') but doesn't mention permission requirements, error behavior (e.g., duplicate label names), reversibility, or what the response contains. The output schema exists but the description adds no behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource. However, its brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness, but it does not waste words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what happens if the project_id is invalid, whether labels can be duplicated, or how to interpret the output schema. The output schema exists, but the description fails to set expectations about side effects or failure modes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning about parameter semantics, only the implicit intent of creating a label. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the semantic load.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Create') and a specific resource ('a label in a project'). It distinguishes the tool from listing or updating labels, though it doesn't contrast with sibling creation tools like create_project or create_work_item. The resource is unambiguous and the scope is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as the project needing to exist first. The description merely states the action without context on typical use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.