HacknPlan MCP Server

upload_attachment

Upload a file attachment to a work item by providing the project ID, work item ID, and file path. Optionally include a file description.

Instructions

Upload a file attachment to a work item

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>",
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "upload_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`filePath`	Yes	Local file path to upload
`projectId`	No	Project ID
`workItemId`	Yes	Work item ID
`description`	No	Optional file description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv7.2.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'upload' without details on overwrite behavior, file type constraints, size limits, or authentication requirements.

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?

Single sentence, 8 words, no redundancy. Efficiently conveys core purpose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple upload tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but lacks mention of return values or error scenarios. Annotations missing, but supplemented by schema.

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% and description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter names and schema descriptions. Baseline 3 applies.

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 action (upload), object (file attachment), and target (work item). It distinguishes from sibling tools like download_attachment and delete_attachment.

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. Prerequisites (e.g., work item existence, file accessibility) are omitted.

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

Deploy Server