Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zenhub-mcp

zenhub-mcp

by derekbar90
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

zenhub_get_repository_labels

Retrieve all labels assigned to a GitHub repository through ZenHub. Streamline project management by accessing label data for organizing issues and epics.

Instructions

Get all labels in a repository

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": "zenhub_get_repository_labels"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repository_idYesGitHub Repository ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.8

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; the description does not disclose behavioral traits like authorization requirements, performance, pagination, or output format. The description is too brief to inform the agent about side effects or constraints.

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 with no unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more informative while remaining concise, hence 4.

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 no output schema and simple input, the description should at least mention what is returned (e.g., list of label objects) or any constraints. It does not provide enough context for an agent to understand the full behavior.

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% (the single parameter 'repository_id' is described as 'GitHub Repository ID'). 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 'Get all labels in a repository' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'all labels in a repository', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'zenhub_get_workspace_labels' which returns labels from a workspace.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'zenhub_get_workspace_labels' or 'zenhub_create_zenhub_label'. No mention of prerequisites or conditions.

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