hacknplan-mcp

update_category

Update an existing work-item category's name, color, or icon in HacknPlan to keep project organization accurate.

Instructions

Update a work-item category (re-name / re-color / re-icon).

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>",
      "category_id": "<category_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "update_category"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`icon`	No
`name`	Yes
`color`	No
`project_id`	Yes
`category_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the updatable aspects but does not disclose permissions, side effects, reversibility, or impact on related work items. The verb 'update' implies mutation, but no further behavioral traits are shared.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Update') and resource, and the parenthetical adds concise scope. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, error behavior, required identifiers, or any consequences of the update, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it confidently.

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

Parameters3/5

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 maps to the 'name', 'color', and 'icon' parameters via the re-name/re-color/re-icon phrase, adding some meaning beyond the bare schema names. However, it does not explain the purpose of project_id and category_id or the required status of name, leaving a partial gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it updates a work-item category and specifies the scope (re-name / re-color / re-icon), giving a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling update tools (e.g., update_stage, update_tag), so it lacks overt sibling differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_category or update_stage. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or situations where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

Deploy Server