Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hacknplan-mcp

hacknplan-mcp

by mtuska
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_dependencies

List a work item's dependencies to find which predecessors block it. Provide project and work item IDs to retrieve blocking items.

Instructions

List a work item's dependencies (the predecessors that block it).

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": "list_dependencies"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
work_item_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the listing action and the dependency direction. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, the return format, error handling, or any side effects. For a read tool without annotations, this is minimal.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and includes clarifying parenthetical information. 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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description gives the core action but omits information about the response format and any operational context. It is adequate for a basic list, but not fully complete given the lack of structured metadata.

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 has two integer parameters with zero descriptions. The description clarifies that work_item_id refers to the work item being queried, but it does not explain the role of project_id or provide context on how the parameters relate. With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it only partially does.

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' and names the exact resource: 'a work item's dependencies' with clarification that they are 'the predecessors that block it.' This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like add_dependency and remove_dependency.

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 implies when to use the tool—when you need to see dependencies of a work item—but it does not provide explicit context, exclusions, or mention of alternatives. There is no when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools