list_labelsRetrieve all labels with their names and colors to view available tags for cards across boards.
The labels you can put on cards, with name and colour.
Labels are yours, not a board's: the same label can sit on cards across all your boards. add_label puts one on a card by name and creates it when it is new.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the non-obvious domain fact that labels are user-scoped rather than board-scoped, which materially affects how an agent interprets results across boards. It adds the side-effect note that add_label creates a label when the name is new, though it says nothing about ordering or what an empty result means.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the scoping fact, then the pointer to the write-side sibling. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is repeated from the annotations.
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 parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the scope of the data, and the relationship to add_label. Only minor gaps remain, such as ordering of results or behavior when no labels exist.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless schema applies. No misleading parameter hints are given.
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 the resource (labels) and what each item contains (name and colour), and the account-wide scope makes clear this is not a board-scoped list like list_boards or list_trash. The listing verb itself is only implied by the title rather than stated, so it falls just short of a fully self-contained verb+resource statement.
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?
It establishes the context in which this is the right call (you need the set of labels available to apply to cards) and routes the write side of the workflow to add_label by name. It does not state exclusions, but no sibling competes for this exact job, so the routing is unambiguous in practice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.