hacknplan-mcp

list_design_element_comments

Fetch all comments and notes on a design element to review the full discussion thread in HacknPlan.

Instructions

List the comments/notes on a design element (design-doc discussion thread).

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>",
      "element_id": "<element_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_design_element_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`element_id`	Yes
`project_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 correctly implies a read-only operation ('List') and adds context that these are part of a design-doc discussion thread. However, it does not disclose return format, ordering, or any required permissions, which would be valuable for a list 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 sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the verb and resource. It could be slightly more informative without harming conciseness, but it is appropriately compact.

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?

As a simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description needs to explain what it returns. 'List the comments/notes' implies the return is a list, but it does not explicitly describe the response structure or how the two parameters interact. Given the minimal complexity, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter semantics. It does not mention project_id or element_id at all. While the parameter names are self-explanatory, the description fails to clarify their role or relationship, adding no value 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 the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource: 'comments/notes on a design element'. The parenthetical '(design-doc discussion thread)' adds context and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_design_element_comment and get_design_element.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly states the tool's function, implying it is used when you need to view comments or notes on a design element. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server