hacknplan-mcp

detach_tag

Remove a tag from a work item in HacknPlan to clean up categorization. Specify project, work item, and tag IDs to detach the tag.

Instructions

Remove a tag from 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>",
      "tag_id": "<tag_id>"
    },
    "name": "detach_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

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 carries the full burden. It states the core action (removal of a tag assignment) but does not disclose idempotence, error behavior, or whether the tag itself is deleted. For a simple detach operation, the primary side effect is clear enough.

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 a single clear sentence with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple three-parameter operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete; it states the action and target, and little else is needed for basic use.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description mentions no parameters. Although the parameter names (tag_id, project_id, work_item_id) are self-explanatory, the description adds no context beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Remove') and clearly identifies the resource ('tag') and target ('work item'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like attach_tag, delete_tag, and update_tag.

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 use case is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_tag. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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

Deploy Server