Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

by crunchtools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Create Label Tool

create_label_tool

Creates a new label in a GitLab project with a name, color, and optional priority or description, enabling organized issue and merge request tracking.

Instructions

Create a new label in a GitLab project.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "color": "<color>"
    },
    "name": "create_label_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesLabel name
colorYesColor hex code (e.g., "#FF0000") or named color
priorityNoLabel priority (lower = higher priority)
project_idYesProject ID or path
descriptionNoLabel description

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing beyond the bare action. It does not say whether creation is idempotent, what error occurs on duplicate names, what permissions are required, or how priority/description defaults behave when omitted.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the minimal information it conveys, though it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely efficient.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the schema is fully documented, but for a mutation tool with zero annotations the description should cover permissions, duplicate-name behavior, and side effects. None of that is present, leaving the agent without key operational context.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and all five parameters (including project_id, name, color, priority, description) are documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat them. It adds no semantic value such as color format constraints or priority ordering caveats beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new label') scoped to 'a GitLab project,' which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_label_tool, delete_label_tool, and list_labels_tool. It does not explicitly name those alternatives, but the purpose 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 update_label_tool or list_labels_tool, no mention of prerequisites such as project write permissions, and no note about behavior when a label with the same name already exists. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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