Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ctk

ctk

by zach-snell
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Remote

manage_labels

List, add, or remove labels on Confluence pages to organize and categorize content efficiently.

Instructions

Unified tool for managing page labels (list)

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": {
      "action": "<action>",
      "page_id": "<page_id>"
    },
    "name": "manage_labels"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesAction to perform: 'list', 'add', 'remove'
page_idYesPage ID (required for all actions)
labelNoLabel name (required for 'add' and 'remove')
limitNoNumber of results per page (default 25)
cursorNoPagination cursor for next page

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits like mutability or side effects. It only says 'unified tool' without indicating whether actions are destructive, idempotent, or require authentication.

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 (6 words), but it sacrifices essential information for brevity. It is not front-loaded with key details and could be more informative without being verbose.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain return values. It does not. Also, it does not describe pagination behavior or the effect of actions, making it incomplete for a tool with 5 parameters and 3 actions.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description indicates the tool manages page labels, but the phrase '(list)' is ambiguous; it does not clarify that the tool supports add, remove, and list actions via the action parameter. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on labels, but the scope is not fully clear.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like manage_pages or manage_attachments. The description lacks context on prerequisites or exclusive use cases.

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