HacknPlan MCP Server

add_comments

Add comments to work items in HacknPlan projects. Supports single or batch addition with per-item error reporting.

Instructions

Add one or more comments to work items (array-based). Single-item and batch calls use the same interface. Returns unified response with items array, counts, and per-item errors.

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": {
      "comments": "<comments>"
    },
    "name": "add_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`comments`	Yes	Array of comments to add (1-100 items)
`projectId`	No	The project ID (optional if HACKNPLAN_DEFAULT_PROJECT set)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv7.2.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Discloses return format (unified response with items, counts, per-item errors) and comment text supports markdown. However, no annotations are provided, and the description lacks details on side effects (e.g., notification triggers), idempotency, or error handling beyond per-item errors.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose and batch capability, second describes response shape. No redundant information; all sentences earn their place.

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?

Description covers response structure but omits details on success/error handling, rate limits, or prerequisites. With no output schema, more information (e.g., possible error scenarios) would improve completeness. Sibling tools are distinct but not contrasted.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds value by noting markdown support for text, the environment variable for project ID optionality, and the min/max constraints on comments array, going beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the verb 'add' and resource 'comments to work items', specifying array-based support for both single and batch calls, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_comments, list_comments, and update_comments.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions batch capability but does not compare to similar tools like add_work_item_dependencies or clarify scenarios for using array vs single item.

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

Deploy Server