Plane MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Create Project

create_project

Set up a new project in Plane by specifying its name and identifier, with options to add an emoji, description, project lead, and default assignee.

Instructions

Create a project.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Human-readable project name.
`emoji`	No	Emoji shown as the project icon.
`identifier`	Yes	Short uppercase key used in work item IDs, e.g. "WEB".
`description`	No	Plain-text project description.
`project_lead`	No	Member UUID of the project lead.
`default_assignee`	No	Member UUID assigned by default.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 26, 2026

TDQS

C2/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Beyond the verb 'create', it reveals nothing about side effects, required permissions, uniqueness constraints, or what happens on success/failure.

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 extremely short, but brevity is achieved by omitting substance rather than by concise writing. It repeats the title and provides no information that earns its place.

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?

Parameter details are covered by the schema and an output schema exists, so the agent can construct the call mechanically. However, with no annotations and no behavioral or usage context, the description is incomplete for distinguishing creation from updates or for understanding constraints like identifier collisions and member UUIDs.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all six parameters and their roles. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but because the schema is complete, the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description is a verbatim restatement of the tool name/title ('Create Project' → 'Create a project.'), adding no scope, qualifiers, or boundary information. It names the action and object, but is effectively a tautology and does not distinguish from sibling tools like update_project or create_work_item.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_project or create_work_item. No prerequisites, required permissions, or conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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