Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HacknPlan MCP Server

HacknPlan MCP Server

by Lint111
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_categories

List the available work item categories (Task, Bug, Feature, etc.) for a project, with offset and limit pagination.

Instructions

List available work item categories (Task, Bug, Feature, etc.). Returns { items, total, offset, limit, hasMore }.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_categories"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax items to return (default: 50, max: 200)
offsetNoSkip first N items (default: 0)
projectIdNoThe project ID (optional if HACKNPLAN_DEFAULT_PROJECT set)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv7.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses the return format (items, total, offset, limit, hasMore), which is helpful. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention side effects, authentication requirements, default behavior (e.g., without projectId), or whether results are exhaustive, which are important for an API tool.

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: one sentence for purpose and one for return structure. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple list tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the primary behavior and return shape. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no mention of projectId's effect on scope), but overall it is adequate for an agent to use correctly.

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 parameters are well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, not even summarizing the parameters' role or interaction (e.g., 'paginated with limit and offset').

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's purpose: listing available work item categories with examples (Task, Bug, Feature). The verb 'list' and resource 'categories' are explicit, and it distinguishes from sibling 'create_categories' by focusing on retrieval.

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?

Usage is implied but not explicit. The description does not specify when to use this tool over siblings like 'create_categories' or other list_* tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or context (e.g., 'when you need to see all categories before assigning').

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