HacknPlan MCP Server

delete_boards

Delete one or more boards from a project by providing their IDs. Supports batch deletion with per-item error handling.

Instructions

Delete one or more boards (array-based, DESTRUCTIVE). 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": "delete_boards"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes	Array of boards to delete (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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It labels the tool as DESTRUCTIVE and mentions the unified response with counts and per-item errors. However, it omits details on permanence, cascading effects, authentication needs, or error handling beyond item errors.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the essential purpose. Every word adds value without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 params, batch operation, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the return structure and destructiveness but lacks information on error handling, reversibility (despite existence of recover_deleted_items), and side effects.

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% with each parameter described. The description adds no further semantic detail about individual parameters (e.g., format, constraints) beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 action ('Delete'), the resource ('boards'), and key characteristics ('array-based, DESTRUCTIVE'). It differentiates from siblings like close_boards (non-destructive) and delete_milestones (different resource) by emphasizing batch and destructiveness.

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 notes that single-item and batch calls use the same interface, implying versatility, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like delete_projects or delete_work_items. No prerequisites or contextual exclusions are provided.

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

Deploy Server