Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
COR MCP Server

COR MCP Server

by fxckcode
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

cor_get_labels

Get labels from projects, tasks, or users by applying an optional entity type filter. Returns all labels when no filter is set.

Instructions

Get labels, optionally filtered by entity type.

Args: entity_type: Entity type filter - "project", "task", "user", or empty for all

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "cor_get_labels"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entity_typeNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only indicates a read operation ('Get labels'), but omits authentication needs, rate limits, or behavior for invalid entity_type values.

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 brief and includes a structured argument list. No redundant sentences, though it could be slightly more organized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return value details are presumably covered. However, the description lacks context about the scope of labels (global vs project-specific) and how this tool differs from cor_get_project_labels.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds explicit valid values for entity_type ('project', 'task', 'user', empty for all') beyond the schema's plain string type. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states it retrieves labels with an optional filter by entity type, but does not specify what kind of labels (e.g., global tags or per-entity). This makes it ambiguous compared to sibling tools like cor_get_project_labels.

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 cor_get_project_labels or cor_add_task_label. The agent must infer from the name alone.

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