Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HacknPlan MCP Server

HacknPlan MCP Server

by Lint111
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

close_projects

Close one or more game development projects by submitting an array of project IDs. Receive a unified response with counts and per-item errors.

Instructions

Close one or more projects (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": {
      "items": "<items>"
    },
    "name": "close_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYesArray of projects to close (1-100 items)

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses mutation (close), batch capability, and response structure (items array, counts, per-item errors). Lacks details on permissions or reversibility, but adequate given absence of annotations.

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 that front-load key information: action, target, array support, and response format. No redundant or extraneous content.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, description covers the main functionality and response format. Could mention the batch size limit (maxItems) explicitly, but it's implied by the schema. Overall sufficiently complete.

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%, so schema already documents the parameter well. Description adds context about array-based and unified interface, but this is minimal added value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it closes one or more projects, explicitly mentions array-based batch capability. Distinguishes from sibling tools like close_boards and close_milestones by specifying the target resource is projects.

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?

Provides clear context that both single-item and batch calls use the same interface, implying versatility. However, does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like reopen_projects for reversal.

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