list_labelsRetrieve all Zendesk Help Center article labels to manage search ranking metadata. Labels stay hidden from end users while improving article discoverability.
List all article labels. Labels improve Help Center search ranking and are not visible to end users.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev1.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context that labels improve search ranking and are not visible to end users, which helps the agent understand the domain and why listing labels is useful. No behavioral traits are missing beyond what annotations cover.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the core action and immediately provides relevant context. Every sentence serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema. The description explains the domain of labels but does not describe the return format (e.g., what fields each label object contains). Since no output schema exists, the description should ideally clarify the output structure. It is partially complete but lacks this detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds meaning by explaining the nature of labels, which is indirectly related to the output. Per baseline for zero parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all article labels' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on 'article labels' specifically, even though there is a separate list_content_tags tool. The additional context about labels improving search ranking and not being visible to end users adds specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_content_tags. It does not specify prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.