HacknPlan MCP Server

get_blocking_items

Retrieve work items that block a specified task by identifying its predecessors that must be completed first.

Instructions

Get work items that are blocking this work item (predecessors that must complete first)

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": "get_blocking_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	No	The project ID (optional if HACKNPLAN_DEFAULT_PROJECT set)
`workItemId`	Yes	The work item ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv7.2.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states the core action without disclosing read-only nature, required permissions, or any side effects. No mention of response format or pagination.

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?

Single, concise sentence front-loading the action 'Get work items that are blocking this work item'. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

The description adequately conveys the core purpose for a simple retrieval tool, but lacks details about the output structure (e.g., list format, fields). Given no output schema, additional context on return shape would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (workItemId required, projectId optional with environment variable fallback). The tool description adds no further parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 retrieves work items that are blocking a specified work item, using specific verb 'get' and resource 'work items that are blocking'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'predecessors that must complete first', clarifying its role in dependency management.

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 this tool versus alternatives like 'get_dependency_tree' or 'get_blockers'. The description implies it is for checking predecessors, but does not provide criteria for selection or situations to avoid.

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

Deploy Server