HacknPlan MCP

update_design_element

Partially update a design element's properties in a game development project, including name, description, type, or dates.

Instructions

Partially update a design element (PATCH)

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": "update_design_element"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`typeId`	No
`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

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No behavioral traits disclosed beyond 'partial update'. No mention of effects on omitted fields, return value, error conditions, or idempotency. Annotations absent, so description carries full burden.

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?

Only one sentence, but it lacks critical details. While not verbose, it is under-specified for a mutation tool with 7 parameters.

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 the complexity (7 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description is grossly incomplete. Missing return value, required fields beyond schema, and any constraints.

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 description does not explain any of the 7 parameters. The agent gets no help understanding the meaning or usage of fields like 'name', 'typeId', 'startDate', etc.

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?

The description clearly states it updates a design element and specifies it is a partial update (PATCH). This distinguishes it from the full update tool 'replace_design_element'.

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 vs alternatives like 'replace_design_element'. Missing context such as prerequisites or expected use cases.

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

Deploy Server