plane-mcp

by babazulu

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources and actions (list_members, list_labels, list_states, create_task, etc.), but change_status overlaps with update_task (both can modify status) and add_comment_with_image overlaps with add_comment. The descriptions clarify the differences, so ambiguity is limited.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_*, create_task, update_task, add_comment). Minor deviations include change_status (could be update_status) and add_comment_with_image (longer but still verb_noun). No camelCase or mixed conventions.
Tool Count4/5
16 tools is slightly above the typical 3-15 range but reasonable for a project management server covering tasks, attachments, comments, labels, states, and members. Each tool serves a distinct purpose within the scope.
Completeness3/5
The surface covers core task operations (create, read, update, status change) and attachments/comments, but lacks task deletion and label/member management. The server appears read-focused for config entities, yet missing delete for tasks is a notable gap.
Average 4.1/5 across 16 of 16 tools scored. Lowest: 3.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
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 only states that a task is created in a configured project, without mentioning side effects, permissions, validation requirements, or behavior on failure. This is minimal transparency beyond the obvious action.
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 a single, direct sentence with no filler or repetition. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words.
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?
The tool has 8 parameters including enums and references (parent_id, state_id, label_ids, assignee_ids), but the description offers no context on relationships, valid value sources, or default behaviors. The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the lack of usage guidance needed for such a complex input schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 50%, leaving parameters like priority, state_id, parent_id, and status_group without descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, failing to compensate for the coverage gap or clarify how these fields interact for task creation.
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 the action (create), the resource (a new task), and the context (in the configured project). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_task or list_tasks, making the 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions. Usage must be inferred solely from the name and simple purpose statement, so it fails to offer explicit context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states that it patches existing tasks but does not clarify what happens to unset fields (e.g., are nulls applied or ignored), idempotency, authorization requirements, or side effects like notifications. This is a significant 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose in a clear subject-verb-object structure.
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 having an output schema, the description omits critical context for a 9-parameter mutation tool with 1 required parameter. It lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and parameter semantics, making it insufficient for a complex operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 11% (issue_id is described as 'Task UUID'). The tool description does not compensate—it merely references 'fields' generically. Parameter names like priority, state_id, label_ids are self-explanatory but not specified, and there is no guidance on how to clear values or relationships.
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 uses a specific verb 'Patch' and resource 'existing task', clearly conveying a partial-update operation. It distinguishes itself from create_task by focusing on existing tasks and from get_task by indicating modification. The scope 'any combination of fields' clarifies that it supports partial updates.
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 description implies usage for updating existing tasks, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like change_status, which also modifies task state, or provide when-not-to-use guidance. There is no mention of alternatives or conditions under which this tool should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. The term 'soft-delete' hints that the deletion is not permanent, but the description does not explain what soft-delete entails (e.g., recoverability, visibility, or side effects). This is a significant 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and target. No wasted words.
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?
With only two required parameters and an output schema, the description is structurally sufficient. However, the lack of behavioral context (what 'soft-delete' means, any permissions or effects) leaves the tool incomplete for an agent without annotations.
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%, with both parameters ('issue_id' and 'attachment_id') documented as UUIDs and their roles clarified. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics.
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 uses a specific verb ('Soft-delete') and clearly identifies the resource ('an attachment from a task'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_attachment, get_attachment_url, and list_attachments.
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 description implies the tool is for deleting attachments, which is a distinct operation among siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It reveals that body_html is sanitized with nh3 default allowlist, explaining the reason for parity with Plane's sanitizer. This adds meaningful behavior beyond just 'post a comment'.
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 only two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and the technical note placed after. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or redundancy.
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?
The tool is simple and has a full schema, but the description omits any guidance on how this relates to sibling add_comment_with_image. Given the sibling context, this is a notable gap in completeness.
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 provides complete descriptions for both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that body_html will be sanitized, giving important behavioral context for that parameter.
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 action ('Post a comment on a task'), identifying the verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling add_comment_with_image, so it just misses the top score.
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 description implies this is the standard comment tool but does not explicitly state when to use it versus add_comment_with_image. No exclusion criteria or alternatives are mentioned, leaving usage guidance implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the responsibility. It discloses that it's a wrapper around update_task and that status_group and state_id are alternatives (OR). However, it doesn't mention what happens if both are provided, whether state_id must come from list_states, or any error/validation behavior. The wrapper reference implies update_task's behavior but doesn't spell out side effects.
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?
Three sentences, all purposeful. The first gives the core action, the second gives the key parameter constraint, and the third explains the rationale for the tool's existence. No redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so return values don't need description. The description covers purpose, usage context, and the OR parameter rule. However, it leaves a small gap about behavior when both parameters are supplied or when neither is provided, which would help complete the picture.
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 coverage is only 33% (only issue_id has a description). The description adds the crucial 'OR' relationship between status_group and state_id, which is valuable. But it doesn't clarify how to obtain state_id (e.g., via list_states) or what status_group values mean beyond the enum in the schema. It partially compensates but leaves gaps.
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 'Move a task to a different state,' which is a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling update_task by explaining it's a convenience wrapper for the most common single-field update, making its purpose unmistakable.
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?
It provides explicit context: 'Convenience wrapper around update_task' and 'most common single-field update,' implying it should be used for simple status changes. It also gives direct parameter guidance with 'Provide status_group OR state_id.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for multi-field updates) beyond the implicit wrapper context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by stating 'Returns trimmed metadata only,' indicating the output is not full attachment details. However, it does not elaborate on what 'trimmed' excludes, nor any auth or rate-limit considerations, leaving some ambiguity.
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 primary action and a concise qualifier. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It conveys the core purpose and output granularity. However, it could clarify what 'trimmed' means or mention lack of pagination/ordering, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for return-value details.
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% for the single parameter 'issue_id' with description 'Task UUID.' The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('file attachments on a task'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like upload_attachment, delete_attachment, and get_attachment_url. The additional phrase 'Returns trimmed metadata only' further sharpens the scope.
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?
Clear context is provided: this tool is for listing file attachments on a task. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, such as using get_attachment_url for full metadata or upload_attachment for adding files.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effect (image also appears in Attachments tab), the workflow steps (upload, build img tag, splice into body_html, sanitize), and the reason (API limitation). This goes beyond the schema and provides significant behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a compact workflow paragraph. Every sentence earns its place, though the workflow paragraph is dense and could be split for readability. Still, it remains concise with no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with a multi-step workflow and side effects, the description covers the essential behaviors: uploading, embedding, sanitizing, and the attachment side effect. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Missing minor details like error conditions or file prerequisites, but overall complete for a complex tool.
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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description mainly recaps the workflow rather than adding per-parameter meaning. It does clarify how body_html's {image} token interacts with the image upload, but the schema already contains that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 the tool posts a comment with an embedded inline image, with a specific verb ('Post') and resource ('comment with ... image'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_comment by emphasizing the inline image aspect and the upload workflow.
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 provides clear context for when to use the tool, including the workflow and the design rationale (no comment-scoped asset entity). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like add_comment for plain comments, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable behavioral context about inline_assets: presigned URLs are short-lived, anonymously fetchable, and the embedded Plane URLs require a session cookie. This goes beyond the basic retrieval semantics, though it doesn't cover error cases or response structure.
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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second paragraph adds essential, non-obvious detail about handling inline assets. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the identifier formats and explains the nuanced inline_assets behavior, which is critical for the agent to correctly use the response. No missing context for effective invocation.
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 parameter is already well-documented. The description repeats the same identifier formats ('UUID' and 'PROJECT-N') without adding new semantic details beyond the schema, so it doesn't elevate beyond the baseline.
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 'Retrieve a single task by UUID or by `PROJECT-N` identifier', specifying the exact resource and the two accepted identifier formats. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_tasks, which retrieves multiple tasks.
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?
Usage is implied by the description—use to fetch a single task by ID—but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_tasks or other sibling tools. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only trimmed fields are returned, the ordering is oldest first, and provides detailed insight into the inline_assets array and presigned URLs, including their time-limited nature. While it does not explicitly state it is a read-only operation, the verb 'list' implies that. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond a simple list call.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is moderately sized with three sentences. The first sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose, the second lists fields, and the third provides necessary detail about inline images. Each sentence earns its place, though the third sentence is somewhat long. It is concise without being terse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the return fields, ordering, and a niche edge case (inline images with presigned URLs). It does not mention pagination or error handling, but those are often covered by the output schema or are less critical for a basic list operation. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 input schema already describes issue_id as 'Task UUID' with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal meaning by linking the parameter to the task context ('comments on a task'), but this does not go beyond what the schema implies. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.
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 the tool 'List comments on a task, oldest first', which uses a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_tasks and get_task by specifying it operates on comments, not tasks. The additional detail about returned fields further clarifies its 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 implies its use case: when you need to list comments on a task, with ordering specified. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to alternatives, but given the sibling tools (e.g., add_comment, list_tasks), the context is clear. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations, so a 4 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It mentions the 5-minute caching behavior and the return fields (id, name, color), which are useful behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects or auth, but for a simple read-only list, this is sufficient and adds value beyond the schema.
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 with no filler. It front-loads the primary action ('List project labels'), then adds the cache and return field details compactly. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema present. The description mentions caching and return fields, which is adequate for understanding the tool's behavior. It does not specify filtering or pagination, but none are expected given the schema and simplicity.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly adds no parameter-specific details since none exist, and the schema is fully covered implicitly.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List project labels'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (list_tasks, list_members, etc.) by specifying 'labels'. It also adds return fields, making the 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing labels but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The caching note provides some context for freshness expectations, but no explicit guidance or exclusion is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly mentions caching behavior (5 min) and the data returned, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only or if any authentication is required, though 'List' implies a safe read. The provided details add value beyond trivial behavior.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that lists the action, key caching detail, and returned fields. Every phrase adds value and there is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, parameterless list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, caching, and return fields. It does not mention pagination or authentication, but the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema reduce the need for additional detail. It is complete enough for an agent to use effectively.
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?
This tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per calibration, a tool with no params gets a baseline of 4. The description does not need to explain parameters since there are none, and it correctly focuses on output and behavior.
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 'List project members' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_labels and list_tasks by focusing on members. It also specifies the return fields (id, display_name, email), making the 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 Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The 'cached 5 min' note gives an implied usage guideline about data freshness, but there are no explicit alternatives or when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions. The description does not mention other tools for more current data or when this tool should be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the three-step S3 presigned URL flow, direct byte upload, and confirmation, plus the fact that it returns created attachment metadata. This goes beyond a trivial 'uploads a file' statement, although it omits potential failure modes or size limits.
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 only two sentences: the first is a front-loaded, clear statement of purpose, and the second packs the multi-step mechanics into a compact, readable sentence. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the rich input schema (100% coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's behavior and return value. The only minor gap is the absence of mention of prerequisites or error conditions, but for a file-upload tool with this schema, the description is complete enough.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all four parameters clearly. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
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 opens with 'Attach a file from disk to a task,' which clearly states the specific action and resource. It further distinguishes itself from sibling read/delete tools like get_attachment_url and delete_attachment by describing the upload flow and return value.
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 opening sentence clearly indicates when to use this tool: to attach a local file to a task. It provides clear context without explicit exclusions or alternative tool names, though it does not mention related alternatives like add_comment_with_image.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and excels. It discloses the stable URL's session requirement, the presigned URL's time-limited nature, and the possibility of null when the asset isn't uploaded. This goes far beyond the schema and contextualizes the tool's behavior for both human and agent use.
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 well-structured with a clear opening statement and bullet points for the two URLs. Every line carries useful information, and the formatting makes it easy to scan. It is concise without sacrificing necessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple, and the description covers its purpose, usage guidance, and behavioral nuances comprehensively. The output schema exists, and the description already explains the return values, so no critical information is missing. The description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly defining issue_id as 'Task UUID' and attachment_id as 'Attachment UUID (from list_attachments)'. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning, but none is needed because the schema is already descriptive. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Get URLs for an attachment' and explains that it returns two distinct URLs with specific purposes. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_attachment_image (which fetches bytes) and list_attachments (which lists attachments).
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 provides explicit guidance on when to use each URL: the stable URL for embedding in Plane-rendered HTML, and the presigned URL for agents to fetch bytes. It also warns that the stable URL does not accept API key auth, implying agents should use the presigned URL. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, which prevents a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description takes on full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It clearly states the client-side filtering design, the 500-item page-through limit, and the meaning of a null cursor. These are non-obvious and essential for the agent to understand the tool's actual operation.
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 three sentences long, starting with the core purpose and then providing two concise clarifications about filtering and pagination. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the important peculiarities (client-side filtering, pagination limit, cursor exhaustion) and the output schema exists to explain the return shape. It does not mention potential error scenarios or prerequisites like project configuration, but given the schema and output schema, the overall context is sufficient for most usage.
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 description coverage is high at 80% (only limit lacks an inline description), but the tool description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it clarifies that limit caps the number of returned matches and that filtering on state/assignee happens client-side. This enhances understanding of how the parameters actually behave.
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 the tool lists tasks in the configured project with optional filtering. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_members, list_labels, and get_task, which have different resources or granularity. The verb 'list' paired with 'tasks' and 'project' scope makes the purpose immediately evident.
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 provides important context about when to use the tool: it explains that filtering is done client-side because the underlying endpoint ignores state/assignee params, so users should rely on this tool for filtered views. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use get_task for a single task', so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the 5-minute cache ('cached 5 min') and explains the return structure (id, name, group, color, sequence). No annotations exist, so this carries the full burden; it covers caching and data semantics, though it omits any error or rate-limit details.
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?
Two concise sentences front-load the main action, then provide field detail and usage. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present and zero parameters, the description is complete: it covers purpose, caching, field enumeration, and the exact reason to call it. The output schema handles precise return types.
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?
Tool takes no parameters, so the description has no parameter burden. Baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds context by explaining how to use the returned data, which is helpful.
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?
States the exact action and resource: 'List workflow states for the configured project.' It also clarifies the value for LLMs (mapping status_group to state_id), which differentiates it from sibling tools like list_tasks or list_members.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly states when to use: 'LLMs need this to map status_group → state_id when creating or updating tasks.' This gives a clear invocation context and ties it to workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses internal behavior: resolves presigned URL, fetches bytes, returns native MCP image content. It also documents failure conditions: raises for non-image MIME types and exceeding the 5 MB cap. This is thorough and non-contradictory.
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?
Four sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, use case/benefit, operational detail, and constraints/errors. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a read tool with no annotations or output schema: explains return type (MCP image content), size limit, and error triggers. The sibling context (get_attachment_url) is referenced, and the tool's role in the attachment lifecycle is clear.
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 baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema's own descriptions of issue_id and attachment_id, but no compensation is needed.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Fetch an image attachment and return it as MCP image content.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_attachment_url (returns URL), list_attachments (lists metadata), and upload_attachment (writes).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States the intended use case ('Lets vision-capable models look at a screenshot/photo on a task directly') and explicitly contrasts with receiving a URL and downloading via shell tool. Also provides a when-not implicit by capping at 5 MB, implying use URL path for larger files.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![plane-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/babazulu/plane-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/babazulu/plane-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![plane-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/babazulu/plane-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/babazulu/plane-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/babazulu/plane-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server