HacknPlan MCP Server

list_work_items

List work items from game development projects with filters for board, stage, assignee, category, milestone, or tag, supporting pagination and verbosity options.

Instructions

List work items with optional filters and pagination. Returns { items, total, offset, limit, index? }. In slim mode, includes index array of [id, name] pairs for all work items (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_work_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max items to return (default: 50, max: 200)
`tagId`	No	Filter by tag
`offset`	No	Skip first N items (default: 0)
`boardId`	No	Filter by board/sprint ID
`stageId`	No	Filter by stage
`projectId`	No	The project ID (optional if HACKNPLAN_DEFAULT_PROJECT set)
`verbosity`	No	Output verbosity: "full" (complete objects) or "slim" (minimal fields). Defaults to global setting.
`categoryId`	No	Filter by category
`milestoneId`	No	Filter by milestone
`assignedUserId`	No	Filter by assigned user

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv7.2.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Discloses the return shape and explains that slim mode includes an index array across pages. However, no mention of read-only behavior or other operational characteristics.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key behavioral note. No waste.

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?

Covers return shape and a key behavioral nuance not in schema. Could mention default limit and max, but schema already includes those. Missing comparison with search siblings.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states it lists work items with optional filters and pagination. Could be improved by explicitly distinguishing from search_work_items, which is a sibling.

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 alternatives like search_work_items or get_work_item. Only mentions it has filters and pagination.

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

Deploy Server