list_milestonesFetch milestones from a repository using owner and repo, optionally filter by open, closed, or all states.
List milestones of a repository.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default 1) | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| limit | No | Results per page (default 30, max 100) | |
| owner | Yes | Repository owner (user or organization) | |
| state | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on pagination behavior, default result set, or whether closed milestones require the state parameter.
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 efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity shades into under-specification rather than true concision.
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 read-only list endpoint with no output schema, the description is minimally viable: annotations carry the safety profile and the schema carries the parameters. It omits any hint of return shape, pagination controls, or the fact that state defaults may hide closed milestones.
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 80%, with page, limit, repo, and owner documented inline; only state lacks a description, and its enum (open/closed/all) is self-explanatory. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 for high coverage applies.
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: 'List milestones of a repository.' An agent immediately knows this returns milestone records rather than issues, releases, or tags. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many other list_* siblings beyond the resource noun, so it stays short of 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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is offered, and no alternative tool is named. The agent must infer on its own that this is the milestone-listing endpoint as opposed to, say, list_issues or list_releases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.