HacknPlan MCP

get_milestone

Fetch details of a milestone by providing project and milestone IDs, with optional board embeddings.

Instructions

Get details of a specific milestone

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>",
      "milestoneId": "<milestoneId>"
    },
    "name": "get_milestone"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`projectId`	Yes
`milestoneId`	Yes
`includeBoards`	No	Embed associated boards in the response (default false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Get details' with no mention of read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. The optional includeBoards parameter is implied but not behaviorally explained.

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 (one sentence), but it is too sparse. While brevity is valued, it lacks necessary structure and detail. It is minimally adequate but not well-formed.

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 the simple retrieval nature with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description should at least hint at what 'details' include or the response format. It is incomplete and leaves the agent guessing about return value structure.

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% (includeBoards has a description). The tool description adds no information about parameters, failing to compensate for the low coverage. It doesn't explain projectId or milestoneId beyond their names.

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 'Get details of a specific milestone' clearly states the verb (get) and resource (milestone). It is specific enough to distinguish from listing siblings like list_milestones, but does not explicitly differentiate from get_milestone_metrics.

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 vs alternatives. With siblings like create_milestone, close_milestone, and get_milestone_metrics, the description lacks any usage context or exclusion criteria.

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

Deploy Server