Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ado-workflows-mcp

ado-workflows-mcp

by grimlor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

remove_pr_label

Removes a specified label from a pull request using its URL or ID. Streamlines PR management by cleaning up unnecessary labels.

Instructions

Remove a label from a PR.

Args: pr_url_or_id: A full PR URL or numeric PR ID. label_name: Label name to remove. working_directory: Optional path for context resolution.

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": {
      "pr_url_or_id": "<pr_url_or_id>",
      "label_name": "<label_name>"
    },
    "name": "remove_pr_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pr_url_or_idYes
label_nameYes
working_directoryNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.12.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the basic action without disclosing behavior on missing labels, idempotency, side effects, or error conditions. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence followed by three parameter lines. No redundant information. Front-loaded with purpose. Every element earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks behavioral context (error handling, idempotency, permissions) and does not explain how the 'working_directory' parameter affects execution. Incomplete for an agent to use safely.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds basic semantics: 'A full PR URL or numeric PR ID', 'Label name to remove', 'Optional path for context resolution.' This is adequate but minimal, lacking format details or constraints.

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?

Description clearly states 'Remove a label from a PR.' The verb 'Remove' and resource 'label from PR' are specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling 'add_pr_label'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage (removing a label) but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not compare with alternatives like 'add_pr_label' or other removal tools.

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