CVAT MCP

cvat_list_labels

List labels from CVAT using filters such as task ID, project ID, job ID, or name, with pagination support.

Instructions

List labels with /api/labels filters such as task_id, project_id, job_id, name, search, and page_size.

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": "cvat_list_labels"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`task_id`	No
`project_id`	No
`job_id`	No
`name`	No
`search`	No
`page`	No	CVAT page number.
`page_size`	No	Number of results per page.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List labels', implying a read-only operation, but does not confirm safety, mention pagination behavior, or other traits. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema already shows.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though it could be slightly more structured by grouping filters. Still efficient.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should describe what the tool returns. It does not. The tool has no required parameters, but usage context (e.g., need for at least one filter) is unclear. The description feels incomplete for a tool with 7 optional parameters.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 29% (page and page_size have descriptions). The description lists parameter names but does not explain their meaning or effect beyond what the schema provides. It fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states 'List labels' with a specific verb and resource. It mentions filters but does not differentiate from siblings like cvat_list_tasks or cvat_list_projects, which also list resources. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling context.

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. The description merely lists filter parameters without explaining context or prerequisites. No explicit when/when-not or alternative tools mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server