Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HacknPlan MCP Server

HacknPlan MCP Server

by Lint111
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_projects

Retrieve all HacknPlan projects accessible with your API key. Supports pagination and slim mode for compact ID-name pairs.

Instructions

List all HacknPlan projects accessible with your API key. Returns { items, total, offset, limit, hasMore, index? }. In slim mode, includes index array of [id, name] pairs for all projects (not just current page).

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_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax items to return (default: 50, max: 200)
offsetNoSkip first N items (default: 0)
verbosityNoOutput verbosity: "full" (complete objects) or "slim" (minimal fields). Defaults to global setting.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv7.2.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses return shape, pagination fields, and slim mode behavior (index array for all projects). Does not mention auth or rate limits.

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, front-loaded with purpose, no wasteful wording. Efficient and clear.

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?

Complete for a list tool: describes return structure, pagination, and mode behavior. Lacks error handling or rate limits, but not critical for basic usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds valuable context for verbosity parameter (index array behavior). No additional insight for limit/offset beyond 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?

Clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'projects', distinguishing from siblings like get_project and create_projects. The scope 'accessible with your API key' is explicit.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Implicitly sets context by mentioning API key scope, but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. However, sibling tools are for other resources, so differentiation is clear.

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