zenhub-mcp

zenhub_create_zenhub_label

Create a custom label for organizing issues in a ZenHub workspace. Specify name, color, and optional description to categorize tasks.

Instructions

Create a ZenHub 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": {
      "workspace_id": "<workspace_id>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "color": "<color>"
    },
    "name": "zenhub_create_zenhub_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`workspace_id`	Yes	Workspace 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

Behavior2/5

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

The description only says 'Create a ZenHub label' with no behavioral details. Since annotations are absent, the description fails to disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what permissions are needed, or side effects such as duplication behavior.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence. It is front-loaded with the core action, but could be more informative without losing conciseness. Score reflects efficiency but not completeness.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about return values, error conditions, or constraints. The limited description leaves the agent guessing about important aspects of tool usage.

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 parameters. The tool description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool creates a ZenHub label, which is specific. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool zenhub_create_github_label, which is a missed opportunity for clarity.

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 like zenhub_create_github_label or other label-related tools. The description lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios.

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

Deploy Server