Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HacknPlan MCP Server

HacknPlan MCP Server

by Lint111
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_projects

Update project names and descriptions in bulk or individually via an API. Handles single and batch updates, returning counts and per-item errors.

Instructions

Update one or more projects (array-based). Single-item and batch calls use the same interface. Returns unified response with items array, counts, and per-item errors.

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_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYesArray of project updates (1-100 items)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv7.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Describes the response structure (items array, counts, per-item errors), which adds value given no annotations. However, lacks details on mutation behavior, permissions, or atomicity.

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, no redundant words, immediately conveys the essential functionality and output format.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides key information about batch behavior and error handling. Could be improved by mentioning rate limits or required permissions.

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 context: array-based, unified interface for single/batch, and response structure, going beyond the schema's field definitions.

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 tool updates projects, supports both single-item and batch via a unified interface, distinguishing it from sibling update tools like update_boards or update_work_items.

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. Does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it.

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