HacknPlan MCP

create_milestone

Create a new milestone in your HacknPlan project, providing name, description, and optional start and end dates.

Instructions

Create a new milestone in a project

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_milestone"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`endDate`	No	ISO 8601 date string
`projectId`	Yes
`startDate`	No	ISO 8601 date string
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'Create', implying a mutation. Critical details like return value, side effects, permission requirements, or validation logic are absent. For a creation tool, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is a single sentence that succinctly conveys the core purpose. It is appropriately front-loaded with the verb and resource. While brief, it contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not clarify required fields, date format expectations (though schema does partially), or what a milestone encompasses. The agent lacks context to use the tool confidently.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 40% (only date parameters have descriptions). The description does not explain any parameters, including required ones like 'projectId' or 'name'. It adds no value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for low coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (create) and resource (milestone) within a project context, distinguishing it from update, close, or delete operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_work_item' or 'create_board', which reduces clarity slightly.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'replace_milestone' or 'update_milestone'), nor are prerequisites like project existence mentioned. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server