GitHub MCP Server

create_label

Create custom labels in GitHub repositories to organize issues and pull requests. Specify label name, color, and optional description for better project management.

Instructions

Create a label in a repository.

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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "color": "<color>"
    },
    "name": "create_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`name`	Yes	Label name
`color`	Yes	Label color hex code without # (e.g. 'ff0000' for red)
`description`	No	Label description

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does 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. It only states the basic action without mentioning permissions required, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions (e.g., duplicate labels), rate limits, or what the output contains. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise with just one sentence, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness in other dimensions.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 5 parameters, and an output schema (which helps), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (permissions, errors), usage guidance, and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations. The output schema existence prevents the lowest score, but the description alone is insufficient.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 label in a repository'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_label' or 'list_labels' by specifying creation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_issue' or 'create_repository' beyond the resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., repository access), when not to use it (e.g., if label already exists), or suggest related tools like 'list_labels' for checking existing labels before creation.

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

Deploy Server