create_project_milestoneCreate a new project milestone. Requires project_milestones:write scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Milestone name (required) | |
| status | No | Milestone status | |
| due_date | Yes | Due date (ISO 8601, required) | |
| phase_id | No | Phase the milestone belongs to | |
| project_id | Yes | Project ID (required) | |
| description | No | Description | |
| is_critical | No | Whether the milestone is on the critical path | |
| completed_date | No | Completed date (ISO 8601) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / is_criticalAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Whether the milestone is on the critical path",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / phase_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Phase the milestone belongs to",
+ "format": "uuid",
+ "pattern": "^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12})$",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / project_id / patternAdded value: +"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12})$"Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"New value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / project_id / patternRemoved value: -"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12})$"Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / project_id / patternAdded value: +"^([0-9a-fA-F]{8}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{4}-[0-9a-fA-F]{12})$"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the required auth scope, but says nothing about duplicate-name handling, defaults for optional fields like status, or what is returned on success.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the auth requirement stated immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.
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 create tool with no output schema, full schema coverage, and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly. Minor gaps remain around default status behavior and uniqueness constraints on name within a project.
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 100%, with all 8 parameters documented including the required trio and the status enum, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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+resource ('Create a new project milestone'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like create_project_phase, create_project_task, and update_project_milestone. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or the boundary with bulk_create, so it earns a solid 4 rather than a 5.
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 only guidance is 'Requires project_milestones:write scope', which is a prerequisite, not when-to-use direction. There is no indication of when to prefer this over bulk_create or update_project_milestone, nor any exclusion, so usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.