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

mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

by crunchtools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Delete Label Tool

delete_label_tool

Remove a label from a GitLab project using its project ID and label ID. Use it to clean up unused or incorrect labels in project label management.

Instructions

Delete a label from 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>",
      "label_id": "<label_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_label_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
label_idYesLabel ID
project_idYesProject ID or path

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / label_id / minimum
      Added value: +1
  2. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it discloses almost nothing: not that deletion is irreversible, not that the label is removed from all associated issues/MRs, not the required token scope or role. Only the fact of mutation is conveyed by the verb 'Delete'.

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 zero filler. It is efficiently structured, though the brevity comes partly at the cost of the missing behavioral detail rather than from ruthless editing alone.

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 no explanation, and the parameter schema is fully described. But for a destructive mutation tool with zero annotations, the description should flag irreversibility and side effects on existing issue/MR label assignments — none of that is present.

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%, so both parameters (label_id as integer, project_id as ID-or-path) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics such as whether project_id accepts a namespace path or how to discover a label_id.

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?

A specific verb plus resource ("Delete a label from a GitLab project") that unambiguously separates it from the sibling label tools (list_labels_tool, create_label_tool, update_label_tool). It never names those siblings, however, so differentiation is by inference rather than explicit routing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The name and description imply when to call it — when a label should be removed — but there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites, when to use update_label_tool instead, or when not to call it. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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