HacknPlan MCP

create_project

Create a new game development project by specifying its name, description, and cost metric (points or hours).

Instructions

Create a new 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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "costMetric": "<costMetric>"
    },
    "name": "create_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`costMetric`	Yes	Cost metric: 'points' or 'hours'
`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?

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action, lacking details about side effects, permissions, or mutation behavior beyond the implied creation.

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?

Extremely concise at 4 words, no fluff. However, conciseness sacrifices necessary detail for a creation tool.

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?

With no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, required permissions, or what happens upon creation.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only 'costMetric' has a description). The tool description does not add any meaning for 'name' or 'description' parameters, leaving gaps.

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 'Create a new project' clearly states the action (create) and resource (project). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'create_board' or 'create_category'.

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 'create_project' versus alternatives such as 'replace_project' (for updates) or other creation tools. No context about prerequisites or limitations.

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

Deploy Server