Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HacknPlan MCP Server

HacknPlan MCP Server

by Lint111
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

batch_delete_work_items

Stage multiple work items for deletion and receive a confirmation token to finalize removal, preventing accidental loss.

Instructions

Stages work items for deletion and returns a confirmation request. No items are deleted until confirm_deletion is called with the confirmation token. Generates preview with warnings if deletion count exceeds cache capacity.

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": {
      "workItemIds": "<workItemIds>"
    },
    "name": "batch_delete_work_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdNoThe project ID (optional if HACKNPLAN_DEFAULT_PROJECT set)
workItemIdsYesArray of work item IDs to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv7.2.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two-phase staging process, preview with warnings, and the requirement for confirmation, which is thorough for a deletion tool.

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 succinct sentences that front-load the key behavior, with no wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description is fairly complete given no output schema, explaining the two-phase process and preview. It could specify what the confirmation request contains, but overall adequate.

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% and both parameters are already described. The description adds no meaningful extra semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description clearly states the tool stages items for deletion and returns a confirmation request, distinguishing it from immediate deletion tools like delete_work_items and confirm_deletion.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly states that items are not deleted until confirm_deletion is called, providing clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not directly compare to sibling tools like delete_work_items.

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