list_milestones
List milestones in a project (key dates such as launch or review gates).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes |
Ganty MCP
by app.ganty
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation, which offers basic transparency, but it does not disclose return format, ordering, pagination, or error behavior. This is adequate for a simple lookup tool.
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 a single, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description is nearly complete for selection purposes. However, it lacks information about what the response contains, which the absence of an output schema makes more critical.
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?
The schema contains one required parameter, projectId, with no description fields (0% coverage). The description references 'in a project', hinting that projectId identifies the project, but it doesn't explicitly explain the parameter's meaning or expected format. The parameter name is self-explanatory, compensating partially.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List milestones in a project' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tasks and list_projects by targeting milestones. Adding 'key dates such as launch or review gates' further clarifies what milestones are.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: use this tool to list milestones within a project. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is evident and it is positioned appropriately among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource-action pair, such as create_task vs update_task vs set_task_progress. Even the two task-modifying tools have clearly separated concerns: one updates arbitrary fields, the other specifically updates progress with auto-derived status.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow the verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_, list_, delete_, get_, add_, set_, update_). The only compound verb, reschedule_and_propagate, still fits the pattern and reads predictably.
Tool Count5/5
15 tools is within the well-scoped 3-15 range, and each tool covers a meaningful operation for a project management domain. No redundant or trivial tools are present.
Completeness3/5
Tasks have full CRUD plus progress and dependency management, but milestones lack update/delete operations, and dependencies only support addition (no removal). These are notable gaps that may require workarounds in some workflows.