A
licenseC
qualityD
maintenanceMCP server for Plane integration, enabling AI agents to interact with Plane APIs and services for project management tasks.
100
MIT
powerplan
by CynaCons
Related Servers
Alternatives to powerplan
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceMCP server for managing a project backlog as Markdown files in Git, enabling AI agents to read, create, and update tasks programmatically.2-
- AlicenseBqualityAmaintenanceUnofficial MCP server for self-hosted Plane Community Edition, enabling project management tasks like managing work items, cycles, modules, and initiatives via natural language.1002MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceMCP server that turns planning documents into structured SQLite data and exposes plan metadata to AI agents, with tools to list and delete saved plans.-
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceA Jira-lite MCP server that enables planning-first workflows for AI-assisted development. It manages tickets as markdown files with YAML frontmatter, guiding agents through epics, stories, tasks, and architecture decision records.1760 PyPIMIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for integrating AI agents with the Plane project management platform, providing tools to manage projects, work items, cycles, modules, and more.MIT
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Scored across 24 tools
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools target distinct resources, but there is notable overlap in the view/entry-point family: show_miniplan, show_current_iteration, show_plan, get_current_iteration, and get_iteration all retrieve current or selected plan state in different formats. Descriptions help, yet show_miniplan and get_current_iteration both claim to be the preferred entry, which creates ambiguity.
Naming Consistency4/5
The set mostly follows a clear verb_noun pattern: create_iteration, get_iteration, update_task, remove_task, close_iteration, etc. Minor inconsistencies exist, such as add_task vs add_tasks, append_prose, and show_miniplan, but overall the convention is predictable and readable.
Tool Count3/5
24 tools is on the heavy side for a plan-management server, and some operations could be consolidated (add_task/add_tasks, multiple show/get variants). The count is not extreme, but the surface feels larger than necessary for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The lifecycle coverage is strong: plans can be bootstrapped, majors and iterations created, tasks added/updated/completed/reopened/removed/deferred, and iterations started/closed. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit way to delete an iteration or major section, but core workflows are well-covered.
Maintenance
ActivityActive
ResponsivenessNo issues