Create a new tag to categorize and organize your LunchMoney transactions, with optional colors and description.
Create a new tag.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the tag. 1-100 characters. | |
| archived | No | If true, the tag is created archived. | |
| text_color | No | Optional text color of the tag. | |
| description | No | Optional description. Up to 200 characters. | |
| background_color | No | Optional background color of the tag. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only include idempotentHint=false, which is minimal. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic creation action, such as whether creating a tag with an existing name fails, whether colors are validated, or what the response contains. With no output schema and sparse annotations, the description carries the burden but doesn't add behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is appropriately sized for a simple create operation, though it could add a bit more context without becoming verbose.
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?
For a create tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, whether the tag is immediately usable, or any constraints like uniqueness. The schema covers parameters, but the description lacks operational context that an agent would need to call it correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. It doesn't clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., whether text_color and background_color are validated together).
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 'Create a new tag' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes from siblings like update_tag and delete_tag, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other create_* tools, which is less necessary given the resource is named.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that tags are likely used to categorize transactions, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is implied by the name and siblings, but there is no explicit usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.