hacknplan-mcp

delete_work_item

Delete a work item from a HacknPlan project by providing project ID and work item ID. Set confirm=true to avoid accidental deletion.

Instructions

Delete a work item. Destructive — set confirm=true to proceed.

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>"
    },
    "name": "delete_work_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`confirm`	No
`project_id`	Yes
`work_item_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly says 'Destructive' and instructs 'set confirm=true to proceed', which are critical behavioral traits. However, it does not disclose cascading effects or permanence beyond the term 'destructive'.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences. No fluff, every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple but lacks output schema and annotations. The description covers the basic action and confirmation requirement, but does not explain return values, failure modes, or side effects like cascading deletion. This is adequate for a simple delete tool but not fully complete.

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?

The description gives meaning to the confirm parameter by stating it must be true to proceed. It does not explain project_id and work_item_id beyond their schema types, despite 0% schema coverage. The parameter names are self-explanatory but not elaborated.

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 'Delete a work item' — a specific verb and resource, and the destructive warning distinguishes it from update or create operations. Among siblings, it clearly targets only work items, not design elements or milestones.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative comparison provided. Usage is implied: to delete a work item, use this. There is no mention of when not to use or which alternative to choose for similar resources.

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

Deploy Server