HacknPlan MCP Server

complete_task

Completes a task in a single call, optionally logging hours, adding a comment, and moving it to a specific stage. Supports task name resolution for convenience.

Instructions

Complete a task in one call with optional time logging and comment. Atomically: marks task completed, optionally moves to completion stage, adds comment, and logs time. Supports name resolution for workItemId.

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": {
      "workItemId": "<workItemId>"
    },
    "name": "complete_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`comment`	No	Completion comment to add (optional, supports markdown)
`projectId`	No	The project ID (optional if HACKNPLAN_DEFAULT_PROJECT set)
`workItemId`	Yes	Work item ID (number) or task name (string) - supports name resolution
`hoursWorked`	No	Hours to log for this task (optional)
`moveToStage`	No	Stage ID to move task to on completion (optional, defaults to current stage)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv7.2.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses atomicity and optional moves, but does not mention side effects (e.g., if task already completed), permission requirements, error conditions, or return values. The atomic behavior is helpful but more detail could reduce ambiguity.

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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the primary action and then details the atomic steps. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clean.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a high-level atomic operation overview. It complements the schema but could explain defaults (e.g., moveToStage) or what happens when using name resolution. Mostly complete for the intended use case.

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 parameters are already described. The description reiterates that comment and hoursWorked are optional and mentions name resolution for workItemId, but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the work.

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 clearly states the verb 'complete' and the resource 'task', and lists the atomic operations (mark completed, optionally move to stage, add comment, log time). It distinguishes from siblings like 'start_task', 'resume_task', and 'update_work_items' by focusing on completion in one call, but does not explicitly name alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when completing a task with optional time logging and comment. It mentions name resolution for workItemId, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., separate update and log calls). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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

Deploy Server