zenhub-mcp

zenhub_create_github_label

Create a GitHub label by specifying its name, color, and optional description for a given repository ID.

Instructions

Create a GitHub label

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": {
      "repository_id": "<repository_id>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "color": "<color>"
    },
    "name": "zenhub_create_github_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repository_id`	Yes	Repository ID
`name`	Yes	Label name
`color`	Yes	Label color (hex without #)
`description`	No	Label description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.8Jun 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description provides no behavioral details: no mention of side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what happens if the label already exists. The minimal description fails to compensate.

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?

Extremely concise at 4 words, no wasted text. However, under-specification is a concern; but conciseness itself is high.

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?

Given the simplicity and high schema coverage, the description is barely acceptable. It does not clarify the scope (e.g., which repository) or output (e.g., success/failure). The tool name implies GitHub, but the description could be more complete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Create a GitHub label' clearly states the action (create) and the resource (GitHub label). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'zenhub_create_zenhub_label' which creates a ZenHub label.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as creating a label in ZenHub or other label-related actions. Does not specify prerequisites or context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server