create_labelAdd a new label to your Vikunja instance by supplying a title plus optional hex color and description, so you can tag and organize tasks.
Create a new label.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | ||
| hexColor | No | Colour as 6 hex digits without '#', e.g. e8e8e8 | |
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation, but says nothing about required permissions, whether titles must be unique, whether the label is global or scoped to a project/task, or what happens on duplicate input. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.
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?
A single short sentence is structurally clean and front-loaded, but here brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. Nothing beyond the tool name is conveyed.
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?
For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only a third of parameters documented in the schema, the description should explain scope, permissions, and return behavior. It covers none of these, leaving the agent unable to call it confidently.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (hexColor is documented, title and description are not). The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented title (required, non-empty) and description fields.
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?
"Create a new label." is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name (create_label) and title (Create label). It states a verb and resource but adds no scope, no distinguishing detail, and no differentiation from siblings such as list_labels or create_task. This is tautology rather than a genuinely informative purpose statement.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites apply (e.g. whether a project or task must exist first), or how it relates to siblings like list_labels. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.