Plane MCP

remove_work_item_from_module

Remove a work item from a module by providing its issue ID and the module ID, updating the module's contents.

Instructions

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issue_id`	Yes
`module_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

B3.2/5.0

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, but it only restates the core action. It does not mention whether removal is permanent, what happens if the work item is not found, whether project_id is needed for disambiguation, or any side effects. For a mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word contributes to meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 has an output schema and a simple purpose, so the description is minimally acceptable. However, with no annotations and no parameter documentation, it lacks details on edge cases, error behavior, and the role of project_id, making it complete only for the most basic 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%, and the description adds no parameter explanations. While parameter names (module_id, issue_id, project_id) are somewhat self-explanatory, the optional project_id is left unclear, and the description does not clarify relationships or constraints beyond the schema's basic types.

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 (remove), the object (work item), and the location (module). It distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_work_item_from_cycle by explicitly naming the module as the context, and 'single' clarifies it removes one item at a time.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_work_items_to_module or remove_work_item_from_cycle. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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