gitlab-api

Create milestone

gitlab_create_milestone

Create a new milestone for a GitLab project by specifying title, description, and project ID. Track project goals and deadlines with this API tool.

Instructions

Create a project milestone.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gitlab_create_milestone"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`title`	No
`project_id`	No
`description`	No
`state_event`	No
`milestone_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv27.3.13Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens on duplicate titles, what permissions are required, or whether the call touches the network in an unpredictable way (which openWorldHint implies).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is efficient, but the brevity shades into under-specification rather than disciplined concision given the unexplained parameter set.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With six undocumented parameters, no output schema, and an opaque 'data' anyOf payload, the description should carry substantial weight but carries none. An agent cannot determine required inputs or the effect of the extraneous-looking fields from this definition alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, and the description supplies no parameter meaning at all. Notably it never explains why a create tool accepts 'milestone_id', 'state_event', or an opaque 'data' object — a genuinely confusing signature left entirely unexplained.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a project milestone'), which is clear enough to distinguish from read/delete milestone siblings. However it does nothing to distinguish from gitlab_update_milestone or to clarify that it is scoped to a single project rather than a group.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (permissions, project membership, existing milestone names), and no naming of alternatives such as gitlab_update_milestone or gitlab_get_milestones. The agent must 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.

Deploy Server