Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HacknPlan MCP Server

HacknPlan MCP Server

by Lint111
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_comments

Modify existing work item comments by specifying the comment ID and new text. Supports batch updates of up to 100 comments.

Instructions

Update one or more comments (array-based). Each item updates a comment with new text.

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": {
      "items": "<items>"
    },
    "name": "update_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYesArray of comments to update (1-100 items)
projectIdNoThe project ID (optional if HACKNPLAN_DEFAULT_PROJECT set)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv7.2.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Update' but does not disclose if it's destructive, permissions needed, or how partial updates work. Inadequate for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Very concise and to the point. Could be improved by adding usage guidance without sacrificing brevity, but currently no fluff.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain return values, error handling, or when projectId is needed. Lacks completeness for a mutation tool.

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 the schema already describes parameters. The description adds 'array-based' and 'each item updates' but these are clear from the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it updates comments and specifies it's array-based for multiple comments. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_comments and delete_comments.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Implicit from sibling tool names, but the description does not help an agent decide between update_comments and alternatives like add_comments.

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