HacknPlan MCP

replace_milestone

Overwrite an existing milestone's complete details with new values for name, description, start and end dates in a HacknPlan project.

Instructions

Full replacement of a milestone (PUT — all fields required)

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": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "replace_milestone"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`endDate`	No	ISO 8601 date string
`projectId`	Yes
`startDate`	No	ISO 8601 date string
`description`	No
`milestoneId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions HTTP method and required fields, but does not explain side effects, idempotency, auth needs, or what happens to omitted optional fields.

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, but at the expense of missing important context. Front-loaded with key information.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain replacement semantics, behavior on partial input, or error handling.

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 coverage is low (33%). Description adds no parameter details beyond stating all fields are required. It does not clarify the role of each parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states it performs a full replacement via PUT, implying all fields are required. Distinguishes from partial update siblings like update_milestone.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Does not explicitly say when to use vs alternatives like update_milestone. The phrase 'all fields required' is ambiguous given only 3 fields are required in schema, which may confuse agents.

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

Deploy Server