list_labelsRetrieve all labels from your Shortcut workspace to categorize and filter stories, epics, and projects.
List all labels in your Shortcut workspace.
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": "list_labels"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it explain the dry_run parameter, which is a notable behavioral aspect. This omission leaves uncertainty about what the tool actually does when invoked.
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, direct sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It immediately states the tool's action and target, making it easy to scan and parse. This is appropriately concise for a simple list operation, with every word contributing to clarity.
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?
Given the absence of annotations and an output schema, the description should provide more context, especially around the dry_run parameter and expected return value. It only states the basic purpose, leaving the agent with unanswered questions about behavior and response format. The tool is simple, but the missing parameter explanation makes the description incomplete for reliable invocation.
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?
The input schema has one parameter (dry_run) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention or explain this parameter at all, leaving the agent without any semantic clue about its purpose or valid values. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level documentation.
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 'List all labels in your Shortcut workspace' clearly specifies the action (List), the resource (labels), and the scope (Shortcut workspace). This distinguishes it from sibling list_* tools like list_projects or list_members, which target different resources. The purpose is unambiguous and directly useful for tool selection.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It merely restates the function without mentioning contexts, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools such as list_custom_fields or list_iterations. There is no explicit 'use this when' direction, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.