HacknPlan MCP

replace_project_tag

Replace an existing project tag with new name and color. Update tag details in your HacknPlan project.

Instructions

Full replacement of a project tag (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>",
      "tagId": "<tagId>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "replace_project_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`color`	No
`tagId`	Yes
`projectId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description states 'full replacement', implying that all fields are overwritten. However, it does not clarify behavior for optional parameters (e.g., what happens to 'color' if omitted) or mention side effects, permissions, or idempotency. Without annotations, the description partially conveys behavior but leaves ambiguity.

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 extremely concise, using a single phrase to convey the core operation. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource. However, it may be too brief given the lack of additional structured 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 the absence of parameter descriptions, output schema, and annotations, the description fails to provide sufficient context. The agent cannot determine return values, error handling, or how the tool differs from similar siblings, making it incomplete for effective use.

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 provides no information about parameters. It does not explain the role of 'projectId', 'tagId', 'name', or 'color', leaving the agent without any semantic context beyond the schema's type 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 'Full replacement of a project tag' with the HTTP method 'PUT', indicating the action and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'update_project_tag', which might perform a partial update. The term 'full replacement' hints at the distinction but lacks direct comparison.

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 over alternatives like 'update_project_tag' or 'create_project_tag'. The agent receives no context about scenarios that warrant a full replacement versus a partial update, making it difficult to choose correctly.

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

Deploy Server