Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HacknPlan MCP

HacknPlan MCP

by jompereira
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

update_milestone

Partially update a milestone's attributes (name, description, dates) in a HacknPlan project by providing only the fields to change.

Instructions

Partially update a milestone (PATCH — only provided fields are changed)

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": "update_milestone"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
endDateNoISO 8601 date string
projectIdYes
startDateNoISO 8601 date string
descriptionNo
milestoneIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear full burden. It only reveals the PATCH behavior (partial update) but lacks details on required permissions, side effects, error states, or response format. Additional context is needed.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) but at the expense of important details like usage guidelines and parameter semantics. While front-loaded, it lacks completeness for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to cover important context such as effect of update, validation, error cases, or idempotency. It is insufficient for reliable agent invocation.

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 description coverage is low (33%) with only endDate and startDate described. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so it does not compensate for the missing documentation of name, description, projectId, and milestoneId.

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's a partial update (PATCH) of a milestone, which distinguishes it from replace_milestone (PUT) and close_milestone. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description indicates 'only provided fields are changed,' which implies when to use it (for partial updates) but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like replace_milestone or close_milestone. Usage guidance is minimal and could be improved.

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