Plane MCP

remove_work_item_from_cycle

Remove a work item from a cycle by providing the cycle ID and issue ID. This keeps sprint scope accurate and up to date.

Instructions

Remove a single work item from 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_id": "<issue_id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_work_item_from_cycle"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cycle_id`	Yes
`issue_id`	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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Remove' without explaining whether the action is destructive, reversible, or requires specific permissions. No side effects or consequences are mentioned.

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 that front-loads the verb and object. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Even with an output schema present, the description is too sparse for a mutation tool. It doesn't clarify when project_id is needed, what happens to the work item after removal, or any relationship to other cycle operations. With no annotations, this is a significant coverage gap.

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

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description provides no information about any of the three parameters (cycle_id, issue_id, project_id), and schema description coverage is 0%. The agent receives no additional meaning beyond the raw parameter names and types, which is insufficient.

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 'Remove' and clearly identifies the resource 'work item' and the target 'cycle', making it distinct from sibling tools like add_work_items_to_cycle or remove_work_item_from_module. The word 'single' adds precision about the operation's scope.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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