Planka MCP Server

cardMembers

Assign or unassign users on Planka cards to manage member access.

Instructions

Manage user assignments on Planka cards.

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "cardMembers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Card ID (required for: add, remove)
`data`	No	Membership data: { userId: string } (required for: add, remove)
`action`	Yes	Action to perform: 'add' - Assign a user to a card; 'remove' - Remove a user from a card

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.4Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Manage user assignments' and gives no information about side effects, permission requirements, or consequences of add/remove actions. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and efficient, though its brevity sacrifices some clarity for purpose.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about return values, prerequisites, or effects, but it does not. The description is too minimal to fully inform the agent about how to use the tool safely and effectively.

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 for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema, but the schema itself is sufficiently descriptive.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Manage user assignments on Planka cards' uses the generic verb 'manage' and does not specify the concrete actions (add/remove) that are only defined in the schema. It does identify the resource (card members) and distinguishes it from sibling tools, but lacks the specificity needed for a clear purpose.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cards or comments. The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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

Deploy Server