project-manager

by samrullo

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

pm_user_attach_label

Attach a contact label to a user. Admin-only endpoint for labeling users in the project manager.

Instructions

POST /users/{user_id}/labels — admin only; attach a contact label to a user.

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": {
      "user_id": "<user_id>",
      "label_id": "<label_id>"
    },
    "name": "pm_user_attach_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`user_id`	Yes
`label_id`	Yes
`x_user_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It correctly identifies admin authorization but omits other important aspects: whether the operation is idempotent, if duplicate attachments are allowed, or any side effects (e.g., notifications). The description is too sparse.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the HTTP method and access control, but does not organize parameter info or additional context. Some conciseness is lost by omitting necessary details.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and poor parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value (despite an output schema existing), nor does it provide contextual information about side effects or prerequisites. The tool is simple but the description could do more.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain what `user_id`, `label_id`, or the optional `x_user_id` represent, leaving the agent to infer from names alone.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description explicitly states the HTTP method (POST), resource path (`/users/{user_id}/labels`), action (attach a contact label to a user), and access restriction (admin only). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like `pm_user_detach_label` and `pm_create_user_label`.

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?

The description only mentions 'admin only' but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., `pm_create_user_label` for creating labels, `pm_task_attach_tag` for attaching tags). No prerequisites or scenarios are discussed.

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

Deploy Server