HacknPlan MCP Server

get_sprint_progress

Obtain comprehensive sprint metrics—burndown chart, dependency graph, hour tracking—for progress analysis.

Instructions

Get comprehensive sprint progress metrics including burndown chart, dependency graph, and hour tracking. Provides rich data for sprint visualization and analysis.

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": {
      "boardId": "<boardId>"
    },
    "name": "get_sprint_progress"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`boardId`	Yes	The board/sprint ID to analyze
`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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states it 'provides rich data' without disclosing important behaviors like read-only nature, required permissions, or performance impact. Basic read operation assumed but not stated.

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 sentences, no wasted words. First sentence front-loads the purpose and key deliverables. Efficient and clear.

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?

No output schema exists, so description should explain return structure. It mentions a few metrics but doesn't specify format or completeness. Adequate for a simple getter but could be more explicit about what 'comprehensive' includes.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents boardId and projectId. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what's in the schema, achieving baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns 'comprehensive sprint progress metrics' and lists specific data types (burndown chart, dependency graph, hour tracking). This differentiates it from siblings like get_sprint_summary, but does not explicitly call out the distinction.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternative getters like get_sprint_summary or get_board_metrics. Missing when-not-to-use or context for choosing.

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

Deploy Server