create_labelCreate a label in a Forgejo or Gitea repository by specifying the owner, repo, label name, and hex color. Add an optional description for context.
Create a label in a repository.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| color | Yes | Hex color, e.g. #00aabb | |
| owner | Yes | Repository owner (user or organization) | |
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not state whether duplicate label names error out, what permissions are required, or whether color format is validated. For a mutation tool this leaves meaningful behavioral gaps.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of the under-specification problem rather than a virtue here.
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?
With 5 parameters, 4 required, no output schema, and incomplete schema descriptions, the definition needs to carry more weight. It omits required-parameter expectations, the hex color format constraint, and any note about conflicting label names, so an agent lacks what it needs to call this reliably.
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 coverage is only 60%: 'name' and 'description' have no schema descriptions, and 5 parameters with 4 required is a non-trivial surface. The description supplies no parameter detail at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented fields and adds nothing over the schema.
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 verb and resource ('Create a label') and scopes it with 'in a repository', which distinguishes it from the label-related siblings add_issue_labels/remove_issue_label that operate on issues. It does not name those siblings explicitly, but the repository scope is enough for an agent to route correctly.
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 versus alternatives such as list_labels (check for an existing label) or add_issue_labels (attach a label to an issue). The only usage signal is the implied 'create' semantics, leaving the agent to infer the context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.