HacknPlan MCP Server

create_boards

Create one or more boards or sprints in a project by specifying names, descriptions, and dates. Accepts single or batch requests with up to 100 items.

Instructions

Create one or more boards/sprints (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": {
      "boards": "<boards>"
    },
    "name": "create_boards"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`boards`	Yes	Array of boards to create (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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. Discloses mutation and response format but lacks details on idempotency, error behavior beyond per-item errors, or rate limits.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Single sentence covering key aspects: operation, batch capability, response structure. Efficient but could be more structured.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return format. Lacks behavioral details like idempotency or rate limits, but given simple tool with 2 params, it's reasonably 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%; parameter descriptions are sufficient. Description adds context about unified response but no extra parameter-level meaning.

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?

Clearly states it creates boards/sprints, is array-based, handles single/batch, and returns unified response. Distinguishes from siblings like update_boards and delete_boards.

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 vs alternatives. Does not mention when not to use or prerequisites for different parameters.

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

Deploy Server