Skip to main content
Glama
goto-software

plane-mcp-server

update_work_item

Update an existing work item by providing its ID and project ID, with optional fields to modify its name, assignees, labels, priority, dates, and more.

Instructions

Update a work item by ID.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesUUID of the project
work_item_idYesUUID of the work item
nameNoWork item name
assigneesNoList of user IDs to assign to the work item
labelsNoList of label IDs to attach to the work item
type_idNoUUID of the work item type
pointNoStory point value
description_htmlNoHTML description of the work item
description_strippedNoPlain text description (stripped of HTML)
priorityNoPriority level (urgent, high, medium, low, none)
start_dateNoStart date (ISO 8601 format)
target_dateNoTarget/end date (ISO 8601 format)
sort_orderNoSort order value
is_draftNoWhether the work item is a draft
external_sourceNoExternal system source name
external_idNoExternal system identifier
parentNoUUID of the parent work item
stateNoUUID of the state
estimate_pointNoEstimate point value
typeNoWork item type identifier

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
type_idNo
created_atNo
updated_atNo
deleted_atNo
pointNo
nameYes
description_htmlNo
description_strippedNo
description_binaryNo
priorityNo
start_dateNo
target_dateNo
sequence_idNo
sort_orderNo
completed_atNo
archived_atNo
is_draftNo
external_sourceNo
external_idNo
created_byNo
updated_byNo
projectNo
workspaceNo
parentNo
stateNo
estimate_pointNo
typeNo
Behavior2/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no behavioral details. It does not disclose whether the update is partial or full, what permissions are required, potential side effects, or the format of the response. Since no annotations are provided, the burden falls entirely on the description, which fails to convey important behavioral traits.

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, focused sentence with no extraneous words. It is very concise and front-loaded, efficiently stating the tool's core purpose. Every word 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?

Given the tool has 20 parameters, a complex input schema, and an output schema (indicated by context signals), the one-line description is insufficient. It lacks explanation of update semantics (e.g., only specified fields are updated), required permissions, or any example usage. The description should provide more context to help the agent 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 has 100% description coverage for all parameters, each clearly documenting its purpose. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update a work item by ID', which is a specific verb+resource identification. It distinguishes from create and delete tools but does not differentiate from other update tools for related entities like epics or initiatives. However, the resource name 'work_item' is unique among siblings.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_epic or update_initiative. The description does not mention any preconditions, use cases, or situations where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer from the resource name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/goto-software/plane-mcp-server'

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