gitlab_get_milestonesFetches all milestones for a GitLab project, allowing filtering by title, description, or state to support project tracking and milestone management.
Get all milestones for a project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| project_id | No | ||
| description | No | ||
| state_event | No | ||
| milestone_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v27.3.13Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the result is project-scoped and covers "all" milestones; it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether the extra parameters (title, state_event, milestone_id, description, data) act as filters or are ignored.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient rather than verbose, though its brevity leaves the substantive gaps above unaddressed.
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 tool with 6 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a singular-name sibling, one sentence is far from sufficient. An agent cannot tell whether the extra parameters filter results or which sibling to call.
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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the meaning and it does not. Only project_id is loosely implied by "for a project"; the presence of title, description, state_event and milestone_id in a read tool is unexplained and actively confusing without the description disambiguating them.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Get all milestones") and scopes it to a project, which reads as a list operation. It does not name or distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling gitlab_get_milestone (singular), so an agent must infer which to call from the name alone.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no mention of the singular sibling as an alternative for fetching one milestone, and no prerequisites stated (project_id is not required in the schema, yet the tool is scoped "for a project"). The agent is left to infer all selection logic.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.