HacknPlan MCP Server

log_work_sessions

Log work hours for single or multiple work items in a project. Submit sessions with work item ID, hours, optional description and date.

Instructions

Log work time for one or more work items (array-based). Single-item and batch calls use the same interface. Returns unified response with items array, counts, total hours, and per-item errors. Note: Does not include automatic time tracking - use log_work_session for that.

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": {
      "sessions": "<sessions>"
    },
    "name": "log_work_sessions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sessions`	Yes	Array of work sessions to log (1-100 items)
`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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so description must compensate. It discloses return structure (items array, counts, total hours, per-item errors) and notes that single and batch share the same interface. However, it omits authorization needs, effects on existing data, and other behavioral traits like idempotency or concurrency.

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?

Three sentences including the note, no filler. Information is front-loaded: verb, resource, array nature, return structure, and alternative. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description explains the return structure (no output schema), and schema fully documents parameters. It lacks context on projectId default behavior and validation error details, but overall sufficient for a logging tool.

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. The description adds value by explaining that sessions is array-based and that single-item calls use the same interface, which goes beyond the schema alone.

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 verb 'Log work time' and the resource 'work items', emphasizing array-based operation. It distinguishes itself from automatic time tracking by referencing an alternative tool, which helps differentiate from siblings, though that sibling is not in the provided list.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says when not to use this tool: 'Does not include automatic time tracking - use log_work_session for that'. This provides clear guidance on alternatives, fulfilling the dimension well.

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

Deploy Server