hacknplan-mcp

list_categories

Retrieve a HacknPlan project's work-item categories. Choose from concise, detailed, or JSON output to suit your needs.

Instructions

List a project's work-item categories.

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": "list_categories"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`format`	No	Output format: 'concise' \| 'detailed' \| 'json'.	concise
`project_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only restates the operation implied by the name; it does not mention output details, filtering, ordering, or side effects. The format parameter's behavioral impact is also not explained.

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?

A single clear sentence that front-loads the action and object, with no wasted words.

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?

For a simple list tool, the one-sentence description is a minimum viable explanation. However, the presence of a format parameter with three modes, no output schema, and no annotation means the agent gets no guidance on what 'detailed' vs 'json' returns or what category objects contain.

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?

The schema documents 'format' fully with enum/default, but 'project_id' lacks a description (50% coverage). The description says 'a project's' which hints at project_id but does not define how to supply it or what values are valid; it adds no detail for format 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 ('List') with a clear resource ('a project's work-item categories'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_tags/list_stages. No ambiguity about scope.

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, exclusions, or alternative guidance is given. The purpose statement implicitly tells the agent this is the read operation for categories, but it does not address when to prefer it over other list tools or mention related create/update/delete category tools.

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

Deploy Server