Skip to main content
Glama

Gitea: Create label

gitea_create_label

Create a new label in a Gitea repository with a name, color, and optional description to organize and categorize issues or pull requests.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Create a new label in a repository.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "color": "<color>"
    },
    "name": "gitea_create_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
repoYes
siteYes
colorYes
ownerYes
descriptionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0
  2. Removedv3.13.1
  3. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the write/non-destructive profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens if a label with the same name exists, whether the operation fails or duplicates, or what the response contains — notable for a non-idempotent mutation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single short sentence with no padding, which is good, but the '[UNIFIED]' token is wasted words and the extreme brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

With 5 required parameters, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and only minimal annotations, the definition leaves too much unexplained for an agent to invoke it confidently — especially the color value format and multi-site scoping.

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 description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Only 'in a repository' hints at owner/repo; the required 'color' format, the meaning of 'site', and the optional 'description' field are entirely undocumented anywhere.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new label in a repository'), which is unambiguous and distinguishes it from gitea_delete_label. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is noise that adds no meaning, and there is no explicit contrast with sibling label tools (e.g. gmail_add_label), but the core purpose is clear.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (site/owner/repo scoping), and no pointer to the delete/remove counterparts. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and title.

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