Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HacknPlan MCP Server

HacknPlan MCP Server

by Lint111
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_design_element

Retrieve details of a specific design element from a HacknPlan game project by providing its ID. Project ID is optional if a default project is set.

Instructions

Get details of a design element

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": {
      "designElementId": "<designElementId>"
    },
    "name": "get_design_element"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdNoThe project ID (optional if HACKNPLAN_DEFAULT_PROJECT set)
designElementIdYesThe design element ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv7.2.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get details' without mentioning idempotency, permissions, or what 'details' encompasses. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and to the point. Slightly more detail would not hurt, but overall it is clean.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'details' includes, any constraints, or error conditions. With sibling tools, more context is needed.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, which already cover the parameters adequately.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'design element', clearly indicating the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, list, update, delete 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 Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_design_elements or update_design_elements. The description lacks any context about use cases.

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