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

mcp-gitlab-crunchtools

by crunchtools
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Update Label Tool

update_label_tool

Modify an existing GitLab project label by ID to change its name, color, description, or priority, keeping project labels accurate.

Instructions

Update an existing 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>",
      "label_id": "<label_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_label_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
colorNoNew color hex code
label_idYesLabel ID
new_nameNoNew label name
priorityNoNew priority
project_idYesProject ID or path
descriptionNoNew description

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

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 burden. It says 'update' but omits critical behavior: whether omitted/null optional fields leave the existing value untouched, whether changes are reversible, what permissions are needed, and whether the tool errors on a nonexistent label. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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, but a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations needs more: partial-update semantics, permission requirements, and error conditions are all missing. The description is not sufficient for an agent to call it confidently in edge cases.

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 all six parameters (project_id, label_id, color, new_name, priority, description) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the baseline-3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: update an existing label in a GitLab project. An agent can distinguish it from create_label_tool, delete_label_tool, and list_labels_tool by name alone. However, the description itself never names or contrasts with those siblings.

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 instead of create_label_tool or delete_label_tool, no prerequisites (e.g., label must already exist, required permissions), and no mention of what to do to partially update. The single sentence gives no usage context beyond the 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