hacknplan-mcp

create_board

Create a sprint or iteration board in HacknPlan, optionally nesting it under a milestone and specifying start and due dates.

Instructions

Create a board (sprint/iteration). Optionally nest under a milestone and set start/due dates (ISO 8601).

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>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_board"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`due_date`	No
`project_id`	Yes
`start_date`	No
`description`	No
`milestone_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It adds useful details like ISO 8601 date format and optional milestone nesting, but does not mention permissions, validation, side effects, or response behavior. For a create tool, the core mutation is obvious, but other behaviors remain opaque.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is exceptionally concise: two short sentences front-load the primary action ('Create a board') and then list optional capabilities without waste. Every word contributes meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the essential creation action and optional parameters, but it does not mention required fields (project_id, name) or what happens after creation. It is sufficient for a simple tool but leaves gaps for an agent to infer.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates for some parameters: it explains milestone_id (nesting) and date parameters with ISO 8601 format. However, it does not elaborate on project_id, name, or description parameters, though these are somewhat self-explanatory from the schema 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'board' and clarifies that a board represents a sprint/iteration, making it distinct from sibling tools like create_project or create_milestone. The core action is immediately clear.

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 gives implicit context (boards can nest under milestones) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_milestone or update_board. No exclusions or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server