Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hacknplan-mcp

hacknplan-mcp

by mtuska
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

update_tag

Change a project tag's name, color, icon, or icon-only display. Provide project ID, tag ID, and the new name.

Instructions

Update a tag (re-name / re-color / re-icon / toggle icon-only display).

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>",
      "tag_id": "<tag_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "update_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
iconNo
nameYes
colorNo
tag_idYes
project_idYes
display_icon_onlyNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 the action (update) and the fields, but does not mention that it overwrites existing values, requires prior existence of the tag, or any side effects. The added contextual value beyond the schema is minimal.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the main verb and includes a concise parenthetical list of specific operations. Every word earns its place, with zero redundant content.

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 captures the core function but lacks details about required identifiers and behavior when unspecified fields are not provided. Given no annotations and no output schema, it could benefit from a bit more context to be fully complete.

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?

The description maps to four parameters: name (re-name), color (re-color), icon (re-icon), and display_icon_only (toggle icon-only display), providing meaning beyond raw parameter names. However, it omits the required identifiers tag_id and project_id, which are crucial for identifying the target tag.

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 'update' and enumerates the exact updatable attributes (name, color, icon, display_icon_only), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_tag, delete_tag, and attach_tag. It unambiguously states what the tool does.

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 the tool is for modifying existing tags, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., use create_tag for new tags) or when not to use it. There is no explicit guidance on prerequisites such as requiring the tag to already exist.

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