hacknplan-mcp

create_tag

Add a new tag to a Hacknplan project by supplying project ID and name. Optionally set a color for the tag.

Instructions

Create a tag (label).

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_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	Yes
`color`	No	#b3bac5
`project_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Create a tag (label).' It fails to mention any creation constraints, uniqueness expectations, project association, or return behavior. The lack of any side-effect or requirement information is a notable 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, making it efficient and easy to parse. While it could include more detail, its brevity is appropriate for a simple operation and does not violate conciseness principles.

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?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not mention that project_id is required for project association, nor does it explain any naming or color constraints. The minimal context leaves the agent to guess operational details.

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?

The input schema has three parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explanation of any parameter. The agent must rely solely on the raw schema, which omits property descriptions. The description does not compensate for this documentation gap.

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 (Create) and the resource (tag), with the parenthetical 'label' providing a useful synonym. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like create_category; however, the token name itself provides sufficient resource identification.

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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_category or create_stage, nor does it mention prerequisites like the need for an existing project. It states only what the tool does, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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

Deploy Server