hacknplan-mcp

update_board

Update a board or sprint by renaming it, adjusting start/due dates, changing description, or re-nesting under a milestone. Dates must be ISO 8601.

Instructions

Update a board/sprint (rename, change start/due date, description, or re-nest under a milestone). Dates are ISO 8601.

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>",
      "board_id": "<board_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_board"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`board_id`	Yes
`due_date`	No
`project_id`	Yes
`start_date`	No
`description`	No
`milestone_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the date format constraint (ISO 8601) and enumerates allowed update operations, but does not mention side effects, permissions, error behavior, or idempotency. This leaves gaps for a mutation tool.

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 redundant information. Every phrase adds value, listing the main update scenarios and the date format in a compact way.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a solid overview but does not cover expected return values, error handling, or prerequisites (e.g., whether project_id and board_id must correspond). It is adequate but not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by mapping several schema parameters (name, start_date, due_date, description, milestone_id) to the listed use cases. It does not explain project_id and board_id, but those are required and inferable from the tool name and 'board/sprint' context.

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 tool updates a board/sprint and lists specific updateable attributes (rename, change start/due date, description, re-nest under milestone). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_project or update_milestone, which target different resources.

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 makes it obvious this tool is for boards/sprints, not for projects or milestones. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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

Deploy Server