HacknPlan MCP Server

start_task

Move a specified task to 'In Progress' stage, optionally adding a comment. Supports identifying tasks by name or ID.

Instructions

Move a task to "In Progress" stage with optional comment. Supports name resolution for workItemId (e.g., "Implement shader" or 123). Auto-detects "In Progress" stage or uses stageId override.

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": {
      "workItemId": "<workItemId>"
    },
    "name": "start_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`comment`	No	Optional comment to add when starting task (e.g., "Starting work on X")
`stageId`	No	Override "In Progress" stage ID (optional - auto-detects if not provided)
`projectId`	No	The project ID (optional if HACKNPLAN_DEFAULT_PROJECT env var set)
`workItemId`	Yes	Work item ID (number) or task name (string) to start

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv7.2.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist; description carries full burden. It explains the state change to 'In Progress' and mentions optional override, but doesn't disclose permission needs, error cases, or what happens if task already in progress.

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 deliver essential information without redundancy. Every element earns its place: main action, optional comment, name resolution, auto-detection.

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 4-param tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains parameters and special behavior (name resolution, auto-detect). Could mention return value or error conditions, but overall sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining name resolution for workItemId (string or number) and clarifying stageId as override. This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 'Move a task to "In Progress" stage with optional comment.', specifying verb, resource, and target stage. It also highlights name resolution and auto-detection, distinguishing it from siblings like complete_task or resume_task.

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?

Provides context on name resolution for workItemId and auto-detection of stage vs override. However, lacks explicit guidance on when not to use (e.g., versus resume_task) or alternatives.

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

Deploy Server