Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HacknPlan MCP

HacknPlan MCP

by jompereira
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

update_project_user

Update a user's role, admin privileges, or active status within a project by specifying the project and user IDs.

Instructions

Partially update a user's project membership (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>",
      "userId": "<userId>"
    },
    "name": "update_project_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleIdNo
userIdYes
isAdminNo
isActiveNo
projectIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only mentions 'PATCH' method, which implies partial update, but lacks details on permissions, error handling, idempotency, or side effects.

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?

Extremely concise but at the cost of completeness. While it includes the HTTP method, it fails to provide essential usage details.

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?

No output schema, 5 parameters with 0% coverage, and no description of return values, errors, or update semantics (e.g., partial vs full replacement). Inadequate for agent 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 coverage is 0%, and description adds no parameter explanations. Does not clarify the roles of roleId, isAdmin, isActive, or that userId and projectId identify the membership.

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?

Clearly states verb 'update', resource 'user's project membership', and specifies it's a partial update via 'PATCH'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like add_project_user and replace_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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like add_project_user or replace_project_user. Missing context about prerequisites or exclusivity.

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