Plane MCP

update_comment

Modify an existing comment on a Plane issue by specifying the issue, comment, and new HTML content.

Instructions

Edit an existing comment.

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": {
      "issue_id": "<issue_id>",
      "comment_id": "<comment_id>",
      "comment_html": "<comment_html>"
    },
    "name": "update_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issue_id`	Yes
`comment_id`	Yes
`project_id`	No
`comment_html`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Edit an existing comment' and provides no context about effects (e.g., idempotency, failure behavior, permissions, rate limits) or what happens if the comment does not exist. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is only one short sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It omits essential behavioral and parameter context, making it more under-specification than effective conciseness. Every word earns its place, but the content is inadequate.

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

Completeness1/5

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

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema details, and a description that only states the primary action. It does not cover expected usage context, failure modes, or relationship to related tools, making it incomplete for safe and correct invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description adds zero parameter information. It does not explain that 'comment_html' contains the new content, or that 'issue_id' and 'comment_id' are identifiers. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 'Edit an existing comment' uses a specific verb ('edit') and resource ('comment'), clearly indicating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_comment' (create) and 'list_comments' (read), making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'add_comment' or 'list_comments', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. This leaves the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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