Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zenhub-mcp

zenhub-mcp

by derekbar90
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

zenhub_remove_labels_from_issues

Remove one or more specified labels from multiple ZenHub issues at once to update issue categorization.

Instructions

Remove labels from multiple issues

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": {
      "issue_ids": "<issue_ids>",
      "labels": "<labels>"
    },
    "name": "zenhub_remove_labels_from_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issue_idsYesArray of issue IDs
labelsYesArray of label names

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.8

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects (e.g., whether labels not already present are ignored), authorization needs, or return behavior. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the action and target.

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?

For a tool that modifies state (removing labels), the description lacks important context such as whether it removes only specified labels or all labels, error handling, and workflow integration. Given the simplicity of parameters, more detail is expected for completeness.

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% with clear parameter descriptions ('Array of issue IDs', 'Array of label names'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema 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 action (remove) and the resource (labels from issues) with 'multiple issues' specifying scope. It is straightforward but does not differentiate from sibling tools like zenhub_add_labels_to_issues beyond the obvious antonym relation.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of required permissions or typical use cases. The description only states the action without contextual usage advice.

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