HacknPlan MCP Server

create_design_elements

Need to add design elements to your game project? Create them individually or in bulk, with detailed error feedback for each item.

Instructions

Create one or more design elements (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": "create_design_elements"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes	Array of design elements 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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Describes return format (unified response with items array, counts, per-item errors). However, no annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. Lacks disclosure of side effects, idempotency, or required permissions, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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?

Two sentences, efficient and front-loaded. No unnecessary words. Slightly above average as it balances brevity with useful context.

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?

With 2 parameters and no nested objects, the description covers the core functionality and response structure. However, missing annotations and lack of output schema mean the description should ideally provide more contextual completeness, such as constraints or error handling.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage; each parameter is already explained. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, so baseline score of 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?

Clearly states the verb 'Create' and resource 'design elements', and specifies it's array-based. Distinguishes from sibling 'create_design_element_types' and 'update_design_elements'.

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?

Mentions that single-item and batch share the same interface, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternative tools. Implied usage is clear but lacks explicit direction.

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

Deploy Server