Add new personal labels to Todoist with custom names, colors, and ordering. Streamline task organization by categorizing tasks effectively.
Add one or more new personal labels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| labels | Yes | The array of labels to add. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| labels | Yes | The created labels. | |
| totalCount | Yes | The total number of labels created. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v13.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds contextual scope ('personal', 'new') beyond the annotations, which only indicate readOnlyHint=false. It implies a write operation but does not disclose expected outcomes, error conditions, or permission requirements. With annotations present, this meets the baseline but adds limited value.
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 sentence with no fluff, delivering the core purpose efficiently. It is adequately concise, though it could benefit from a brief note on usage or outcomes 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?
The tool is simple (one array parameter) with a rich schema and output schema available. The description covers the essential purpose but omits any mention of behavior on duplicate names or whether labels are applied to a specific workspace. It is sufficient for a straightforward creation tool but lacks additional context that might be helpful, yielding a moderate score.
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 struct definition fully documents each parameter (name, color, order, isFavorite). The description adds no parameter-specific information, consistent with the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
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 'Add one or more new personal labels' clearly identifies the verb (add), resource (labels), and scope (new, personal). It distinguishes from sibling 'update-labels' by specifying 'new' and 'personal', making the purpose unambiguous.
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 usage guidance is provided beyond the basic statement. It does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update-labels' or 'find-labels', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.