Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
project-manager

project-manager

by samrullo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

pm_user_detach_label

Detach a label from a user account by providing user ID and label ID. Admin access required.

Instructions

DELETE /users/{user_id}/labels/{label_id} — admin only.

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_detach_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_idYes
label_idYes
x_user_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 only mentions the admin requirement and the DELETE method. There is no explanation of side effects (e.g., the label is removed from the user), irreversibility, or whether the label itself is deleted.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), but it lacks structure. It does not separate purpose, usage, or parameter details, making it less effective despite its brevity.

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, incomplete parameter documentation, and no explanation of the output schema or error conditions, the description is not sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description does not add any meaning to the parameters. The three parameters (user_id, label_id, x_user_id) are not explained, forcing 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.

Purpose4/5

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

The description includes the HTTP method DELETE and the path, making it clear that this tool removes a label from a user. It is distinct from 'pm_user_attach_label' and 'pm_delete_user_label', but lacks detailed context about what detaching a label entails.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'pm_user_attach_label' or 'pm_delete_user_label'. The only usage constraint mentioned is 'admin only', which is insufficient for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools