Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hacknplan-mcp

hacknplan-mcp

by mtuska
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_design_elements

Retrieve design elements from a project's design tree, with optional filtering by type ID.

Instructions

List design elements (nodes of the design/feature/knowledge tree). Optionally filter by type_id.

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_design_elements"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
type_idNo
project_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It implies a read-only list operation but does not disclose access requirements, return format, pagination, or any side effects. The parenthetical about tree nodes adds minimal context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word adds value, and the optional filter is clearly communicated.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits the required project_id context, does not clarify what a design element is beyond the brief parenthetical, and lacks behavioral or return-value details that would help the agent use the tool correctly.

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. It explains type_id as an optional filter but does not mention project_id, which is required. Only one of two parameters receives semantic explanation.

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 the action ('List') and the resource ('design elements'), and the parenthetical ('nodes of the design/feature/knowledge tree') adds specificity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_design_element_types by focusing on elements rather than types.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The optional filter by type_id implies a use case, but there is no mention of when to prefer this over other list tools or any exclusions.

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