Plane MCP

create_cycle

Create a cycle in Plane, specifying a name and optionally a start/end date, owner, and description to organize work into time-boxed iterations.

Instructions

Create a cycle. Dates are 'YYYY-MM-DD'. owned_by is a member UUID.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_cycle"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`end_date`	No
`owned_by`	No
`project_id`	No
`start_date`	No
`description`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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 only adds format hints for dates and owned_by, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., that this creates a persistent record), permissions required, required vs optional fields, or what happens on success/failure. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is only two sentences with no fluff, which is concise. However, it is likely under-specified for a tool with six parameters; conciseness should not come at the expense of necessary context. It is not wastefully verbose but could be more informative within the same length.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and zero schema coverage, the description is incompletely specified. It does not mention that name is required, how project_id relates to cycles, or any behavioral context like whether the cycle must belong to a project. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the lack of input guidance.

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 clarifies that dates use 'YYYY-MM-DD' format and owned_by is a member UUID, but it says nothing about the meaning of name, project_id, or description. The added value is partial and insufficient for the number of parameters.

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 states 'Create a cycle' with a clear verb and resource. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_cycles, get_cycle, and update_cycle.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_project or create_module. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or decision criteria for choosing create_cycle.

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