gitlab-mcp

Create Group Milestone

gitlab_create_group_milestone

Create a group milestone that projects and subgroups can share, with optional start and due dates in YYYY-MM-DD format.

Instructions

Create a group milestone that projects and subgroups in the group can use. Dates use YYYY-MM-DD.

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": {
      "group_id": "<group_id>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "gitlab_create_group_milestone"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	Yes
`due_date`	No
`group_id`	Yes
`start_date`	No
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.7.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive open-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the date format and the inheritance scope, but says nothing about required permissions, title uniqueness within the group, or validation of start_date vs due_date ordering.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the format note. Slightly terse for a 5-parameter creation tool, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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

There is no output schema and no annotation detail on permissions or idempotency behavior, so the description should carry more. It covers purpose and date format but leaves an agent guessing about group_id formatting, duplicate-title behavior, and what the response contains.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does: it specifies YYYY-MM-DD for the two date fields, which the schema leaves as bare strings. The group_id format (numeric ID vs path), title constraints, and the description field remain 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 group milestone') and clarifies the scope of effect (projects and subgroups in the group). This separates it from gitlab_create_group, but it never distinguishes it from the project-level gitlab_create_milestone sibling, which is the most likely confusion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the phrase 'that projects and subgroups in the group can use' hints at when a group-scoped milestone is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to the project milestone alternative or to gitlab_update_group_milestone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server