create_labelAdd a new label to a board by specifying its name and Planka color. Use labels to organize and categorize cards for clearer project tracking.
Create a new label on a board. Color should be a Planka color name like 'muddy-grey'.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| color | Yes | ||
| boardId | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the core effect (creates a new label on a board) and one domain constraint (Planka color name), but it does not address board existence, duplicate behavior, permissions, or validation outcomes.
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 tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the non-obvious color requirement is stated immediately after in a direct, useful way.
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 simple three-parameter create with an output schema, the definition is mostly complete. The main gap is the incomplete color vocabulary: without enums or a fuller list, an agent may try an invalid color string, and the description only gives one example.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful meaning for the color parameter by specifying the Planka color-name format, but boardId and name are left to their self-evident names and the full set of valid colors is not enumerated.
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?
States a specific action ('Create') and resource ('new label') with clear scope ('on a board'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_label, delete_label, and add_label_to_card without needing to inspect their schemas.
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 implies usage for creating a new label, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternatives such as update_label or add_label_to_card. The color guidance is a formatting hint, not a routing/usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.