Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hacknplan-mcp

hacknplan-mcp

by mtuska
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_subtasks

Retrieve a work item's sub-tasks with completion state to view and track its checklist.

Instructions

List a work item's sub-tasks (its checklist), with completion state.

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_subtasks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes
work_item_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
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 it lists subtasks with completion state, implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly disclose side-effect-free nature, ordering, pagination, or error handling. The 'completion state' adds some return 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?

Single sentence, immediate verb, no fluff. Efficiently front-loaded.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and only a terse description, the tool lacks context about required project_id and return structure. It covers the basic purpose but misses parameter semantics and behavioral details.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only implies the role of work_item_id ('a work item's'), and does not explain project_id or the relationship between the two. Both parameters are required but the description gives no guidance on their format or semantics.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('a work item's sub-tasks, its checklist') and adds output detail ('with completion state'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_work_items' and 'list_dependencies'.

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 its use whenever a work item's checklist is needed, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions. No mention of 'list_dependencies' or 'add_subtask' for related operations.

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