gitlab-mcp

Get Group Milestone Burndown Events

gitlab_get_group_milestone_burndown_events

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve burndown chart events for a GitLab group milestone to track scope and progress over time. Requires GitLab Premium or Ultimate.

Instructions

Get burndown chart events for a group milestone. Premium/Ultimate.

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>",
      "milestone_id": "<milestone_id>"
    },
    "name": "gitlab_get_group_milestone_burndown_events"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No
`group_id`	Yes
`per_page`	No
`milestone_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.7.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful Premium/Ultimate tier constraint, which annotations do not express, but says nothing about pagination behavior or the shape of the returned events.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler or redundancy. The size is appropriate, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

This is a paginated read tool with four parameters at zero schema description coverage and no output schema. The description does not explain pagination, ID format, or what 'events' contain, leaving meaningful gaps an agent would have to guess at.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden of explaining all four parameters. 'Group milestone' loosely maps to group_id and milestone_id, but page and per_page are entirely undocumented anywhere, and no format or ID-type detail is given for the two required parameters.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get burndown chart events for a group milestone'), which is clearly distinguishable from the project-scoped sibling gitlab_get_milestone_burndown_events through the word 'group'. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

The only guidance is 'Premium/Ultimate', which is a licensing prerequisite rather than a when-to-use rule. Nothing tells the agent when to pick this over the project-level burndown tool, or what conditions make it inapplicable.

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

Deploy Server