Plane MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Update Work Item

update_work_item

Update specific fields of a Plane work item—title, state, priority, dates, description, assignees, labels—replacing assignee and label lists entirely for accurate project tracking.

Instructions

Update the provided fields of a work item; omitted fields are unchanged.

assignees and labels replace the existing lists when provided, so pass the complete list you want rather than a single addition.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New title.
`state`	No	State UUID — use `list_states` to find it.
`labels`	No	Label UUIDs, replacing the current labels — use `list_labels`.
`priority`	No	One of "urgent", "high", "medium", "low", "none".
`assignees`	No	Member UUIDs, replacing the current assignees — use `list_workspace_members`.
`project_id`	Yes	Project UUID.
`start_date`	No	ISO date, e.g. "2026-01-31".
`description`	No	New plain-text description (converted to HTML for you).
`target_date`	No	ISO date, e.g. "2026-02-15".
`work_item_id`	Yes	Work item UUID.
`estimate_point`	No	Estimate point UUID.
`description_html`	No	New HTML description; takes precedence over `description`.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed12 schema fields changedv0.1.1Sep 26, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / assignees / description
```
Added value: +"Member UUIDs, replacing the current assignees — use\n`list_workspace_members`."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / description / description
```
Added value: +"New plain-text description (converted to HTML for you)."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / description_html / description
```
Added value: +"New HTML description; takes precedence over `description`."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / estimate_point / description
```
Added value: +"Estimate point UUID."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / labels / description
```
Added value: +"Label UUIDs, replacing the current labels — use `list_labels`."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / name / description
```
Added value: +"New title."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / priority / description
```
Added value: +"One of \"urgent\", \"high\", \"medium\", \"low\", \"none\"."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / project_id / description
```
Added value: +"Project UUID."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / start_date / description
```
Added value: +"ISO date, e.g. \"2026-01-31\"."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / state / description
```
Added value: +"State UUID — use `list_states` to find it."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / target_date / description
```
Added value: +"ISO date, e.g. \"2026-02-15\"."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / work_item_id / description
```
Added value: +"Work item UUID."
```
First observedv0.1.0Sep 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose two important behaviors: omitted fields are unchanged, and assignees/labels replace the entire list. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or how to explicitly clear a field, which are relevant 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 sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the critical list-replacement warning is separated and emphasized, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the rich input schema and output schema, the description covers the key non-obvious semantics. However, it does not explain how to clear a field (e.g., explicit null vs empty array) or provide tool-selection context relative to siblings like create_work_item or delete_work_item, leaving some gaps for a 12-parameter mutation tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the cross-cutting patch semantics ('omitted fields are unchanged') and emphasizing that assignees/labels must be passed as complete lists, which is not fully captured by individual parameter descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Update'), a clear resource ('work item'), and the exact scope ('provided fields'), making it easy to distinguish from create_work_item, delete_work_item, and get_work_item. The added note that omitted fields are unchanged further sharpens the purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly establishes when to use this tool: to modify specific fields of an existing work item. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous and the replacement caveat for assignees/labels provides practical usage guidance.

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