Plane MCP

update_project

Update a project's name, description, lead, or assignee. Only specified fields change.

Instructions

Update a project's editable fields. 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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`project_id`	Yes
`description`	No
`project_lead`	No
`default_assignee`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate a key behavior: only provided fields are modified. However, it does not mention required project_id, error conditions, permissions, or any side effects, leaving gaps 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the key partial-update behavior. There is no redundancy or wasted content.

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?

For a five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, this description is too thin. It does not explain parameter semantics, usage prerequisites, or how the tool differs from alternatives like update_work_item or create_project. The existing output schema covers return values, but other contextual gaps remain.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. It only says 'editable fields' without explaining the five parameters (name, description, project_lead, default_assignee) or the requirement for project_id. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema 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 clearly states 'Update a project's editable fields' with a specific verb and resource, and 'Only provided fields change' distinguishes this from full replacement or creation. It differentiates from siblings like create_project and get_project by emphasizing the partial-update scope.

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 phrase 'Only provided fields change' implies when to use the tool (for partial updates without affecting unspecified fields), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The usage context is implied rather than clearly stated.

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