Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Gitea: Delete label

gitea_delete_label
Destructive

Delete a label from a Gitea repository by specifying the site, owner, repo, and label ID. Use it to remove labels that are no longer needed from issues and pull requests.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Delete a label from 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>",
      "label_id": "<label_id>"
    },
    "name": "gitea_delete_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYes
siteYes
ownerYes
label_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing further: it does not say whether deletion is permanent, whether the label is detached from existing issues, what permissions are required, or how failures are reported.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One short sentence that is front-loaded and free of padding. The bracketed '[UNIFIED]' tag is the only wasted token.

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 mutation with four undocumented required parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot confirm the identifier format, site semantics, or the consequences of deletion from this definition alone.

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 four required parameters. The description only loosely implies that a 'repository' (owner/repo) and a 'label' (label_id) are involved and says nothing about the meaning of 'site' or that label_id is a numeric identifier rather than a name.

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 (delete a label from a repository), which is enough to separate it from creation-oriented siblings like gitea_create_label. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds no meaning, and there is no explicit contrast with credential/tag deletion siblings, but the core action 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 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 gitea_create_label or when to modify a label instead of deleting it. No prerequisites or warnings about the operation being irreversible are given.

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