Get all available test case labels (sometimes called tags) for a project. Returns label IDs and names that can be used when creating or updating test cases.
Get all available test case labels (sometimes called tags) for a project. Returns label IDs and names that can be used when creating or updating test cases.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | The ID of the project to retrieve labels for |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.0v2.1.0v2.0.0v1.9.2v1.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by stating the return content (label IDs and names) and that it returns 'all available' labels, which implies no pagination. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but those are less critical for a simple lookup.
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?
Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the purpose and parenthetical synonym, the second adds return and usage context. No wasted words.
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 simple one-parameter lookup with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned (label IDs and names), the scope (project), and the intended use (when creating or updating test cases). Nothing essential is missing.
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 coverage is 100% for the single project_id parameter, so the schema fully documents it. The description reinforces that labels are scoped to a project but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('test case labels (sometimes called tags)') scoped to a project, which is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling lookup tools like get_priorities or get_statuses, but the resource is unique among siblings.
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 a clear usage context: labels are 'used when creating or updating test cases.' This tells an agent when to fetch labels, though it stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.