Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@wanadev/mcp-gitlab

@wanadev/mcp-gitlab

by wanadev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_project_milestone

Read-only

Retrieve details of a specific milestone within a GitLab project by providing project and milestone IDs.

Instructions

Get details of a project-level milestone.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "milestone_id": "<milestone_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_project_milestone"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesProject ID
milestone_idYesMilestone ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.8.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so description's 'Get details' is consistent. No additional behavioral traits disclosed (e.g., no mention of required permissions, rate limits, or that it returns a single milestone object). With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds minimal extra value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence with no redundancy. Every word earns its place. Front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

No output schema, and description only says 'Get details' without specifying what details are returned (e.g., fields like title, due date, state). For a simple retrieval tool, more context on the return format would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100% – both parameters have descriptions ('Project ID', 'Milestone ID'). However, these descriptions are minimal and the tool's overarching description does not add any semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states 'Get details of a project-level milestone' – verb 'get' and resource 'project-level milestone' are specific. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling 'get_milestone' (which might be for milestones at other levels) or 'list_project_milestones'. Still, the 'project-level' qualifier provides some distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_milestone' or 'list_project_milestones'. The description omits any context about prerequisites, filter conditions, or preferred use cases.

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