HacknPlan MCP Server

create_work_item_atomic

Create a work item with all related operations in a single transaction. Supports name resolution for categories, tags, and importance levels.

Instructions

Create a work item atomically with all related operations in a single transaction. v4.5+ supports name resolution.

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "categoryId": "<categoryId>"
    },
    "name": "create_work_item_atomic"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	Title of the work item
`tagIds`	No	Tag IDs or names
`boardId`	No	Board/sprint to add to
`stageId`	No	Stage ID
`projectId`	No	The project ID (optional if HACKNPLAN_DEFAULT_PROJECT set)
`categoryId`	Yes	Category ID or name
`description`	No	Description/details
`estimatedCost`	No	Estimated cost/points
`importanceLevelId`	No	Importance level ID or name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv7.2.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. Only mentions atomicity and version support for name resolution, missing details on failure behavior, permissions, or side effects.

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, front-loaded sentences. No wasted words; purpose and version note are efficiently delivered.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema, so return value unknown. With 9 parameters and no annotations, description omits prerequisites (e.g., board/stage setup) and operational context for a complex transactional tool.

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 covers all parameter descriptions (100%), so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra value (e.g., 'name resolution' but doesn't link to parameters). Adequate but not enhanced.

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 creates a work item atomically in a single transaction, distinguishing it from the sibling 'create_work_items' (likely batch). The verb 'create' and resource 'work item' are specific.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The atomicity implies it's for transactional safety but no alternative recommendations or prerequisites mentioned.

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

Deploy Server