Planka MCP Server

comments

Fetch existing card discussions or add new ones in Planka to manage task feedback.

Instructions

Manage comments 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": "comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Card ID to get/add comments (required for: list, create)
`data`	No	Comment data: { text: string } (required for: create)
`query`	No	Query parameters for filtering/pagination
`action`	Yes	Action to perform: 'list' - Get comments for a card; 'create' - Add a comment to a card

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.4Aug 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It merely says 'manage' without indicating whether operations mutate data, require permissions, or have side effects. It does not mention that 'list' is read-only or that 'create' is a write operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and multiple actions. It is not a tautology, yet it lacks substantive information.

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 absence of annotations and an output schema, the description should explain the available actions and expected return values. The one-sentence description is incomplete for a tool with four parameters and nested objects, leaving the agent without crucial context.

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 parameters and their meanings. The description adds no additional parameter-specific value, 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.

Purpose3/5

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

The description uses the vague verb 'manage' and does not enumerate the specific actions (list, create) that appear in the schema. It names the resource ('comments on Planka cards') but lacks the specificity needed to distinguish it from sibling tools or clarify its exact functionality.

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 or how it relates to alternatives. The description provides no context on which action to select or how this tool differs from siblings like cards or tasks.

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

Deploy Server