HacknPlan MCP

replace_design_element

Replace an existing design element with new name, type, description, and dates in your HacknPlan project.

Instructions

Full replacement of a design element (PUT)

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>",
      "designElementId": "<designElementId>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "typeId": "<typeId>"
    },
    "name": "replace_design_element"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`typeId`	Yes
`endDate`	No
`projectId`	Yes
`startDate`	No
`description`	No
`designElementId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions 'full replacement (PUT)', implying idempotent overwrite, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., missing fields being cleared), required permissions, or rate limits. The agent is left guessing about behavior beyond the basic operation.

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 extremely short (3 words + PUT), which is concise but at the cost of omitting essential details. It is not structured to front-load critical information; it is simply a label.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what a design element is, what the parameters represent, what the return value is, or how the tool interacts with the system. The agent cannot make an informed decision without additional context.

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%, meaning no parameters are explained in the schema. The description adds no information about the 7 parameters (name, typeId, startDate, etc.), so the agent has no clue what each parameter means or how to use them correctly.

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?

Description states it is a full replacement of a design element and mentions PUT, indicating a complete overwrite. It is clear about the action and resource, but fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'update_design_element', which likely does a partial update.

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 like 'update_design_element'. The description implies full replacement but does not explicitly state when this is appropriate or what the prerequisites are.

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

Deploy Server