Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HacknPlan MCP Server

HacknPlan MCP Server

by Lint111
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_dependency_tree

Fetch the full dependency tree for a work item, including all predecessors and successors, to map task interdependencies.

Instructions

Get full dependency tree for a work item (all predecessors and successors)

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_dependency_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdNoThe project ID (optional if HACKNPLAN_DEFAULT_PROJECT set)
workItemIdYesThe work item ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv7.2.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states it retrieves a tree but omits details like recursion depth, cycle handling, permissions, or whether it is a read-only operation.

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 sentence containing the essential information: what the tool does and its scope. No wasted words.

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?

The description lacks information about the return format (e.g., hierarchical vs flat, IDs vs full items) despite the tool producing a potentially complex output. No output schema exists to compensate.

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 both parameters clearly documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'get', the resource 'dependency tree for a work item', and scope 'all predecessors and successors'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_work_item_children' and mutation tools.

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 implies usage for viewing all dependencies but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_work_item' or 'add_work_item_dependencies'. No exclusions or contextual hints are given.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools