Plane MCP

find_project

Search and locate projects by matching part of the name or identifier, case-insensitive.

Instructions

Find projects whose name or identifier contains query (case-insensitive). Handy when you only know the project name.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "find_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavior: case-insensitive matching against name or identifier, which goes beyond the tool name. It does not state return format or pagination, but the existence of an output schema reduces that burden. The description adds useful behavioral context without contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and contains zero waste. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states what it does, the second gives usage context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple search tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is complete. It covers the search behavior, the input meaning, and the typical use case. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining that 'query' is matched against the project name or identifier, adding semantic meaning beyond the parameter name alone. With a single parameter and this explanation, the semantics are clear.

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 ('Find') and resource ('projects'), and clearly defines the matching criteria ('name or identifier contains `query`', case-insensitive). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_projects (which lists all) and get_project (which fetches by exact ID).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'Handy when you only know the project name' provides clear context for when to use this tool, implying partial information. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently clear given the sibling tool set.

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