HacknPlan MCP

get_work_item_attachment

Retrieve details of a specific attachment linked to a work item in your HacknPlan project. Provide project, work item, and attachment IDs.

Instructions

Get details of a specific work item attachment

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>",
      "workItemId": "<workItemId>",
      "attachmentId": "<attachmentId>"
    },
    "name": "get_work_item_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes
`workItemId`	Yes
`attachmentId`	Yes

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 fully convey behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or require any permissions. No side effects, limits, or output format are mentioned.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 ID parameters, no output schema), the minimal description is partially adequate but fails to specify the return structure or any constraints. It does not fully prepare the agent for expected behavior.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation of the three parameters (projectId, workItemId, attachmentId). The agent is left to infer their meaning from names alone, which is inadequate for correct invocation.

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 uses specific verb 'Get details' and resource 'work item attachment', which clearly indicates the tool retrieves information about a single attachment. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_work_item_attachments' (which lists all) and 'delete_work_item_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, such as when to call 'get_work_item_attachment' instead of 'list_work_item_attachments'. The description does not mention prerequisites like having the attachment ID.

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

Deploy Server