Plane MCP

update_module

Update a Plane module, changing only the specified fields. Set name, status, lead, members, dates, or description.

Instructions

Update a module. Only provided fields change.

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": "update_module"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lead`	No
`name`	No
`status`	No
`members`	No
`module_id`	Yes
`project_id`	No
`start_date`	No
`description`	No
`target_date`	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

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses an important behavioral trait: 'Only provided fields change.' This indicates a partial update (PATCH-like) semantics. However, with no annotations available, it does not cover other behaviors like permissions, error handling, idempotency, or whether the module must exist.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes the most essential behavioral note.

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?

Despite the presence of an output schema, the description is minimal for a tool with 9 parameters and no annotations. It lacks usage context, prerequisites, side effects, and any mention of how to validate input. The description covers only the basic action and one behavioral aspect, which is insufficient for a complex update operation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds value by stating that only provided fields change, clarifying that optional parameters left null are ignored. However, it does not explain individual parameter purposes or formats, relying on self-explanatory names and schema types.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Update a module.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing, and the added phrase 'Only provided fields change' clarifies the scope. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling update tools, but resource names make them distinct.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or expected context. The description only implies usage via the tool name and generic 'Update a module.' No exclusions or alternative suggestions are given.

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