hacknplan-mcp

update_project

Update project name, description, or cost metric (Hours/Points) to keep project information accurate and aligned with current planning needs.

Instructions

Update a project's name / description / cost metric ("Hours" or "Points").

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": "update_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`project_id`	Yes
`cost_metric`	No
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Update' without disclosing behavioral traits such as partial update semantics, side effects, permission requirements, or whether all fields are optional. This leaves the agent without critical information about how the update behaves.

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 with no extra words, effectively conveying the tool's purpose and fields. It is front-loaded and earns its place.

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 simple update tool, the description covers the core fields and enum values, but lacks behavioral context such as partial update behavior, prerequisites, or return value. No output schema exists, so not explaining return values is acceptable, but the description is minimally sufficient.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by naming the updatable fields and explicitly specifying allowed cost metric values ('Hours' or 'Points'). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though it does not describe the required project_id parameter.

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 verb 'Update' with a specific resource ('a project') and explicitly lists the fields (name, description, cost metric). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_work_item or update_design_element by naming the project scope.

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?

Usage is implied by the action 'Update a project', but no explicit context or alternatives are mentioned. There are no exclusions or guidance on when to prefer this over other update tools, making it adequate but not explicit.

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

Deploy Server