Plane MCP

list_module_work_items

Retrieve all work items assigned to a specific module in your Plane workspace. Use this to track module progress and manage related tasks.

Instructions

List the work items assigned to a module.

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": {
      "module_id": "<module_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_module_work_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`module_id`	Yes
`project_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the listing action, without addressing pagination, ordering, filtering, or permissions. While the operation is a read, that is not explicitly stated, leaving significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it efficient and appropriately sized.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, but the description lacks parameter explanations and usage context. It covers the core purpose but leaves gaps in behavioral transparency and parameter semantics, which is notable given the absence of annotations and low schema coverage.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the two parameters, so the description must compensate. It does not explain module_id or project_id beyond what the names imply, and the optional project_id is left undefined. The phrase 'assigned to a module' adds modest context, but not enough to clarify parameter roles or constraints.

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 clearly states the action: 'List the work items assigned to a module.' It specifies both the verb (list) and the resource (work items assigned to a module), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_work_items (all work items) and list_cycle_work_items (work items in a cycle).

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 usage through the tool name and phrasing, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like list_work_items or search_work_items. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided; usage is inferred, not directed.

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