Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Gitea: Create milestone

gitea_create_milestone

Create a new milestone in a Gitea repository by specifying site, owner, repo, and title, plus optional state, due date, and description.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Create a new milestone in a repository.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "gitea_create_milestone"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYes
siteYes
ownerYes
stateNoopen
titleYes
due_onNo
descriptionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0
  2. Removedv3.13.1
  3. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The write-related annotations are consistent with creation, but the description adds little behavioral context beyond repository scope. It does not address permissions, duplicate-title handling, validation, or what happens when optional fields are omitted.

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?

The action is front-loaded in a single readable sentence with no procedural filler. The unexplained '[UNIFIED]' tag adds noise, and the brevity leaves out useful operational detail.

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?

For a seven-parameter creation tool with no parameter documentation or output schema, this description is not complete enough to support reliably correct invocation. The basic operation is clear, but important targeting, optional-field, and behavioral details remain unspecified.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain the parameters but does not do so. In particular, it gives no meaning or format guidance for site, state, or due_on, nor does it clarify how site, owner, and repo jointly identify the target repository.

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?

The description gives a specific action and resource—creating a new milestone—and adds repository scope. It is clear enough to distinguish the operation by resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling creation tools such as issue or release creation.

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 guidance about when milestone creation is appropriate, what prerequisites apply, or when another tool should be used. The sentence states the operation but provides no selection or exclusion criteria.

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