Plane MCP

add_work_items_to_cycle

Add work items to a cycle using their UUIDs. Group issues into cycles to plan and manage sprints effectively.

Instructions

Add one or more work items (by UUID) to a cycle.

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": {
      "cycle_id": "<cycle_id>",
      "issue_ids": "<issue_ids>"
    },
    "name": "add_work_items_to_cycle"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cycle_id`	Yes
`issue_ids`	Yes
`project_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Add' which implies mutation, but does not disclose idempotency, validation rules, permissions required, or the effect on existing cycle membership.

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 wording. It immediately states the action and the primary resource type.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters with no schema descriptions and no annotations. The one-sentence description covers only the basic action, leaving the agent without parameter semantics, usage context, or behavioral expectations, making it insufficient for reliable invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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 provides a minimal hint that work items are identified by UUID (implied for issue_ids), but gives no explanation of cycle_id or the optional project_id parameter.

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 uses a specific verb 'Add' and identifies the resource 'work items to a cycle', clearly distinguishing this from remove or listing operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'add_work_items_to_module', so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_work_items_to_module' or 'remove_work_item_from_cycle'. The description only states the action without contextual triggers or exclusions.

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