Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HacknPlan MCP

HacknPlan MCP

by jompereira
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get_importance_level

Get details of a specific importance level in a project. Provide project ID and importance level ID.

Instructions

Get details of a specific importance level

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>",
      "importanceLevelId": "<importanceLevelId>"
    },
    "name": "get_importance_level"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYes
importanceLevelIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.3/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden but only states 'Get details'. It fails to disclose read-only nature, idempotency, error conditions, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand tool behavior.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very concise (5 words), but this comes at the cost of completeness. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, but lacks necessary details to be minimally adequate.

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 no output schema, the description should explain return values but does not. For a simple retrieval with two parameters, the description is incomplete, missing what 'details' include and whether the tool is safe.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema has zero description coverage for its two parameters (projectId, importanceLevelId). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to guess parameter purpose or constraints.

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 (Get details) and the resource (a specific importance level), distinguishing it from siblings like create_importance_level, delete_importance_level, and list_importance_levels. However, it lacks explicit context such as the project scope, which is implied only by the input schema.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_importance_levels, or any prerequisites. The minimal description leaves the agent without context on whether this is for a single detail retrieval versus a list.

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