Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HacknPlan MCP

HacknPlan MCP

by jompereira
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

update_design_element_comment

Update the text of an existing comment on a design element in a HacknPlan project. Specify project, design element, comment ID, and new text.

Instructions

Update a comment on a design element (PUT — replaces content)

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>",
      "commentId": "<commentId>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "update_design_element_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
commentIdYes
projectIdYes
designElementIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Description states PUT replaces content, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like overwrite behavior, return value, side effects, or required permissions. With no annotations, this is minimal.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently conveys the key action and HTTP method, though could be slightly restructured for clarity. No wasted words.

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?

As a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks information on return values, error conditions, and operational context, making it incomplete.

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 additional meaning for any of the four parameters (text, commentId, projectId, designElementId) beyond their names.

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?

Description clearly states the action (update) and resource (comment on design element) and specifies it is a PUT operation that replaces content, distinguishing it from create and delete siblings.

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 create or delete comment, nor any mention of prerequisites or context for updates.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools