Shortcut MCP Server

Create Shortcut Label

create_label

Create a new label in Shortcut to categorize and filter stories, epics, and other items. Provide a name and optional color or description to organize your workflow.

Instructions

Create a new label in Shortcut.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`color`	No	Hex color, e.g. #FF0000
`confirm`	No	Must be CONFIRM_WRITE to execute
`dry_run`	No
`description`	No
`external_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it says only 'Create a new label in Shortcut.' It does not mention that the 'confirm' parameter must be CONFIRM_WRITE, the existence of dry_run, idempotency, error conditions, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short (one sentence), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It adds no information beyond the tool name and title, making it an ineffective use of the description slot.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It fails to mention the required 'name' field, the confirm/dry_run mechanism, the color format, or any return value. This is wholly inadequate for a tool with moderate complexity.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the description does not compensate. It provides no explanation of the 'name', 'external_id', 'dry_run', or 'description' parameters. The schema itself only describes 'color' and 'confirm', leaving most parameter semantics unexplained anywhere.

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 the action ('Create') and resource ('a new label') in the Shortcut domain. It is distinct from sibling tools like update_label and delete_label, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from add_story_label beyond the create semantics.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_label or add_story_label, nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for creating a label.

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

Deploy Server