hacknplan-mcp

assign_user

Assign a project user to a work item by providing project ID, work item ID, and user ID.

Instructions

Assign a project user to a work item.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "work_item_id": "<work_item_id>",
      "user_id": "<user_id>"
    },
    "name": "assign_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`user_id`	Yes
`project_id`	Yes
`work_item_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'assign' without explaining side effects, whether the assignment is idempotent, permissions needed, or what happens if the user is already assigned. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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, direct sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is under-specified given the tool's mutation nature and lack of other documentation. It earns its place but does not provide enough substance.

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 3 required integer parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and a mutation operation, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the assignment semantics, any constraints, or expected behavior, making it incomplete for safe and correct tool invocation.

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 adds no parameter semantics. It does not explain the role of project_id, user_id, or work_item_id, nor the relationship between a project user and a work item. The agent is left to infer everything from the bare parameter names, which is insufficient.

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 clearly states the action ('Assign') and the resources involved ('project user' to 'work item'), distinguishing it from the sibling 'unassign_user'. However, it lacks any additional context such as whether this replaces or adds an assignee, so it is not a perfect 5.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this should be used for adding an assignee to a work item, nor does it indicate any prerequisites like the user being a project member. It simply states the action without context.

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

Deploy Server