HacknPlan MCP

replace_project_user

Replace a user's project membership by updating their role, admin status, and activity. Specify project and user IDs to apply changes.

Instructions

Full replacement of a user's project membership (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>",
      "userId": "<userId>"
    },
    "name": "replace_project_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`roleId`	No
`userId`	Yes
`isAdmin`	No
`isActive`	No
`projectId`	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?

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'full replacement' and 'PUT', implying overwrite semantics, but fails to explain side effects such as what happens to unspecified fields, permissions required, or idempotency. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 a single sentence with a parenthetical 'PUT', making it concise. However, it is so brief that it omits essential details, trading conciseness for completeness.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, replace operation, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the behavior when optional fields are omitted, what the response looks like, or potential errors. Sibling tools like add_project_user or update_project_user have similar ambiguity.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions in the schema. The description adds no meaning to the five parameters beyond their names (projectId, userId, roleId, isAdmin, isActive). The agent gets no hints on how to use roleId, isAdmin, or isActive, or their acceptable values.

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 states 'Full replacement of a user's project membership' which clearly identifies the verb (replacement) and resource (project membership). It distinguishes from siblings like add_project_user and update_project_user by implying a complete overwrite, but does not explicitly contrast with update_project_user.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus add_project_user or update_project_user, nor does it mention prerequisites, contexts, or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server