de en es ja ko ru zh

Plane MCP Server

Name: Plane MCP Server
Author: kelvin6365

by kelvin6365

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Remote

Plane MCP Server

Schmiedeabzeichen

Ein Model Context Protocol (MCP)-Server ermöglicht LLMs die Interaktion mit Plane.so und ermöglicht ihnen die Verwaltung von Projekten und Problemen über die Plane-API. Mit diesem Server können LLMs wie Claude direkt mit Ihren Projektmanagement-Workflows interagieren und gleichzeitig die Benutzerkontrolle und Sicherheit gewährleisten.

Merkmale

Listen Sie alle Projekte in Ihrem Plane-Arbeitsbereich auf
Erhalten Sie detaillierte Informationen zu bestimmten Projekten
Erstellen Sie neue Probleme mit anpassbaren Eigenschaften
Auflisten und Filtern von Problemen aus Projekten
Erhalten Sie detaillierte Informationen zu bestimmten Themen
Aktualisieren Sie vorhandene Probleme mit neuen Informationen

Related MCP server: Plane MCP Server

Voraussetzungen

Node.js 22.x oder höher
Ein Plane.so API-Schlüssel
Ein Plane.so-Arbeitsbereich

Installation

Option 1: Schmiedekunst verwenden

Der schnellste Weg zum Einstieg besteht darin, Smithery zu verwenden, um den Server direkt zu installieren:

# Install to Claude for Desktop
npx -y @smithery/cli install @kelvin6365/plane-mcp-server --client claude

Dieser Befehl richtet den Plane MCP-Server automatisch für die Verwendung mit Claude ein. Nach der Installation müssen Sie den Server mit Ihrem Plane-API-Schlüssel und Ihrem Arbeitsbereichs-Slug über die Claude-Einstellungen konfigurieren.

Gültige Client-Optionen sind: Claude, Cline, Windsurf, Roo-Cline, Witsy, Enconvo, Cursor

Beispiel für die Installation mit Cursor:

npx -y @smithery/cli install @kelvin6365/plane-mcp-server --client cursor

Option 2: Manuelle Einrichtung

Wenn Sie den Server lieber manuell einrichten möchten, führen Sie die folgenden Schritte aus:

Klonen Sie dieses Repository:

git clone https://github.com/kelvin6365/plane-mcp-server.git
cd plane-mcp-server

Installieren Sie Abhängigkeiten:

npm install

Erstellen Sie den Server:

npm run build

Verwendung mit Claude für Desktop

Hinweis: Wenn Sie oben Option 1 (Smithery) verwendet haben, können Sie diesen Abschnitt überspringen. Smithery konfiguriert den MCP-Server automatisch für Sie.

Öffnen Sie Ihre Claude for Desktop-Konfigurationsdatei:
- macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
- Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
Fügen Sie die Plane MCP-Serverkonfiguration hinzu:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "plane": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["path/to/plane-mcp-server/build/index.js"],
      "env": {
        "PLANE_API_KEY": "your_plane_api_key_here",
        "PLANE_WORKSPACE_SLUG": "your_workspace_slug_here"
      }
    }
  }
}

Starten Sie Claude für Desktop neu

Verfügbare Tools

Hinweis: Toolnamen verwenden Bindestriche (z. B. list-projects ), keine Unterstriche. Der Server konvertiert Unterstriche aus Kompatibilitätsgründen automatisch in Bindestriche.

Liste-Projekte

Listet alle Projekte in Ihrem Plane-Arbeitsbereich auf.

Parameter: Keine

Beispiel:

{}

Projekt abrufen

Ruft detaillierte Informationen zu einem bestimmten Projekt ab.

Parameter:

project_id : ID des abzurufenden Projekts

Beispiel:

{
  "project_id": "01abc123-4567-89de-0123-456789abcdef"
}

Problem erstellen

Erstellt ein neues Problem in einem angegebenen Projekt.

Parameter:

project_id : ID des Projekts, in dem das Problem erstellt werden soll
name : Titel der Ausgabe
description_html : HTML-Beschreibung des Problems (erforderlich für die Plane-API)
priority (optional): Priorität des Problems („dringend“, „hoch“, „mittel“, „niedrig“, „keine“)
state_id (optional): ID des Staates für dieses Problem
assignees (optional): Array von Benutzer-IDs, die diesem Problem zugewiesen werden sollen

Hinweis: Der Parameter assignees muss ein Array von Benutzer-ID-Zeichenfolgen sein. Häufige Fehler sind die Angabe eines Wörterbuchs/Objekts anstelle eines Arrays oder die versehentliche Verschachtelung der gesamten Problemdaten im Feld „assignees“. Der Server versucht, diese Fälle zu verarbeiten, es empfiehlt sich jedoch, das korrekte Format zu verwenden.

Beispiel:

{
  "project_id": "01abc123-4567-89de-0123-456789abcdef",
  "name": "Implement new feature",
  "description_html": "<p>We need to implement the new reporting feature</p>",
  "priority": "high",
  "assignees": ["user-id-1", "user-id-2"]
}

Listenprobleme

Listet Probleme aus einem angegebenen Projekt mit optionaler Filterung auf.

Parameter:

project_id : ID des Projekts, aus dem Probleme abgerufen werden sollen
state_id (optional): Filtern nach Status-ID
priority (optional): Filtern nach Priorität
assignee_id (optional): Filtern nach der Assignee-ID
limit (optional): Maximale Anzahl der zurückzugebenden Probleme (Standard: 50)

Beispiel:

{
  "project_id": "01abc123-4567-89de-0123-456789abcdef",
  "priority": "high",
  "limit": 10
}

Problem abrufen

Ruft detaillierte Informationen zu einem bestimmten Problem ab.

Parameter:

project_id : ID des Projekts, das das Problem enthält
issue_id : ID des abzurufenden Problems

Beispiel:

{
  "project_id": "01abc123-4567-89de-0123-456789abcdef",
  "issue_id": "01def456-7890-12gh-3456-789ijklmnopq"
}

Update-Problem

Aktualisiert ein vorhandenes Problem in einem Projekt.

Parameter:

project_id : ID des Projekts, das das Problem enthält
issue_id : ID des zu aktualisierenden Problems
name (optional): Aktualisierter Titel des Problems
description_html (optional): HTML-Beschreibung des Problems (erforderlich für die Plane-API)
priority (optional): Aktualisierte Priorität des Problems
state_id (optional): Aktualisierte Status-ID des Problems
assignees (optional): Aktualisiertes Array von Benutzer-IDs, die diesem Problem zugewiesen werden sollen

Hinweis: Der assignees -Parameter muss ein Array von Benutzer-ID-Zeichenfolgen sein und denselben Formatrichtlinien wie das Tool zum Erstellen von Problemen folgen.

Beispiel:

{
  "project_id": "01abc123-4567-89de-0123-456789abcdef",
  "issue_id": "01def456-7890-12gh-3456-789ijklmnopq",
  "priority": "urgent",
  "description_html": "<p>Updated description with <strong>more details</strong></p>"
}

Entwicklung

Installieren Sie Entwicklungsabhängigkeiten:

npm install --save-dev typescript @types/node

Starten Sie den Server im Entwicklungsmodus:

npm run dev

Testen

Sie können den Server mit dem MCP Inspector testen:

npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector node dist/index.js

Beispiele

Hier sind einige Beispielinteraktionen, die Sie mit Claude ausprobieren können, nachdem Sie den Plane MCP-Server eingerichtet haben:

„Können Sie alle Projekte in meinem Plane-Arbeitsbereich auflisten?“
„Bitte erstellen Sie im Marketingprojekt ein neues Problem mit hoher Priorität mit dem Titel ‚Social-Media-Strategie aktualisieren‘.“
„Welche Probleme haben im Entwicklungsprojekt alle höchste Priorität?“
„Aktualisieren Sie Problem Nr. 123 im QA-Projekt, um seine Priorität auf dringend zu ändern.“

Claude wird die entsprechenden Tools verwenden, um mit Plane zu interagieren, und Sie vor dem Erstellen oder Ändern von Problemen um Ihre Zustimmung bitten.

Sicherheitsüberlegungen

Der API-Schlüssel erfordert die entsprechenden Plane-Berechtigungen, um zu funktionieren
Für alle Vorgänge, bei denen Daten geändert werden, ist eine ausdrückliche Zustimmung des Benutzers erforderlich.
Umgebungsvariablen sollten ordnungsgemäß gesichert werden
API-Schlüssel sollten niemals der Versionskontrolle übergeben werden

Beitragen

Forken Sie das Repository
Erstellen Sie Ihren Feature-Zweig ( git checkout -b feature/amazing-feature )
Übernehmen Sie Ihre Änderungen ( git commit -m 'Add some amazing feature' )
Pushen zum Zweig ( git push origin feature/amazing-feature )
Öffnen einer Pull-Anfrage

Lizenz

Dieses Projekt ist unter der MIT-Lizenz lizenziert – Einzelheiten finden Sie in der Datei LICENSE.

Unterstützung

Wenn Sie auf Probleme stoßen oder Fragen haben:

Überprüfen Sie den Abschnitt „GitHub-Probleme“
Konsultieren Sie die MCP-Dokumentation unter modelcontextprotocol.io
Öffnen Sie eine neue Ausgabe mit detaillierten Reproduktionsschritten

Sternengeschichte

Available Tools

6 tools

create-issueC

Create a new issue in a project

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project_id`	Yes	ID of the project where the issue should be created
`name`	Yes	Title of the issue
`description_html`	No	HTML description of the issue (required by Plane API)
`priority`	No	Priority of the issue (urgent, high, medium, low, none)
`state_id`	No	ID of the state for this issue (optional)
`assignees`	No	Array of user IDs to assign to this issue (optional)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create' which implies a write operation, but doesn't mention permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a creation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, error conditions, or provide enough context for safe usage despite the comprehensive schema.

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 schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new issue in a project'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'update-issue' or specify what distinguishes creation from other operations.

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 like 'update-issue' or 'list-issues', nor does it mention prerequisites or context for creation. It's a basic statement without usage context.

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

get-issueC

Get detailed information about a specific issue

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes	ID of the project containing the issue
`issue_id`	Yes	ID of the issue to retrieve

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get detailed information,' implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' includes (e.g., fields, format). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly, though it lacks depth due to its brevity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'detailed information' entails, potential return values, or error handling. For a read operation with rich sibling tools, more context is needed to guide the agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for 'project_id' and 'issue_id' in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as parameter interactions or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific issue'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-intake-issue' or 'get-issue-activity', which also retrieve issue-related information, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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. With many sibling tools like 'list-issues' for multiple issues or 'get-intake-issue' for specific types, there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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

get-projectB

Get detailed information about a specific project

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes	ID of the project to retrieve

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get detailed information,' omitting any details about authentication, rate limits, or what 'detailed' encompasses. For a read operation, it is minimally transparent.

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, clear sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place.

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?

For a simple get operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks context about the return format or any prerequisites. It does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations or additional behavioral notes.

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%, and the parameter 'project_id' is adequately described in the schema as 'ID of the project to retrieve.' The description adds no extra meaning beyond that, meeting the baseline for parameter 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 clearly states the tool retrieves detailed information about a specific project, using a specific verb+resource structure. It successfully distinguishes from sibling tools like create-project, delete-project, and get-issue.

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 list-projects or get-issue. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context for appropriate use.

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

list-issuesC

List issues from a project

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project_id`	Yes	ID of the project to get issues from
`state_id`	No	Filter by state ID (optional)
`priority`	No	Filter by priority (optional)
`assignee_id`	No	Filter by assignee ID (optional)
`limit`	No	Maximum number of issues to return (default: 50)

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'List issues' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (implied by 'limit'), default sorting, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a basic listing tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., issue format), pagination behavior, or error cases. For a tool with 5 parameters and no structured behavioral hints, this leaves the agent under-informed about critical usage aspects.

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 schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining how filters combine or the format of returned issues. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'List issues from a project' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('issues'), but it's vague about scope (e.g., all issues vs. filtered) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get-issue' (single issue) or 'list-projects' (different resource). It's functional but lacks specificity.

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. For example, it doesn't mention using 'get-issue' for a single issue or 'list-projects' to find project IDs first. The description implies usage for listing issues but offers no context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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

list-projectsA

List all projects in the workspace

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No parameters

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should fully describe behavior. It is minimal, only stating a read operation. It lacks details on pagination, ordering, or whether results are comprehensive.

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 extremely concise at 5 words, with no filler. Every word is informative and necessary.

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 no-parameter list tool, the description is mostly complete. It specifies workspace scope, but could mention if results are limited or paginated. Still adequate for the 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 no parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it appropriately avoids extraneous information.

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 (List), the resource (projects), and the scope (in the workspace). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get-project (single project) and create-project.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-project. Usage is implied but not clarified with when-not or specific contexts.

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

update-issueC

Update an existing issue in a project, delete just update the issue title with 'delete' or 'remove'

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project_id`	Yes	ID of the project containing the issue
`issue_id`	Yes	ID of the issue to update
`name`	No	Updated title of the issue (optional)
`description_html`	No	HTML description of the issue (required by Plane API)
`priority`	No	Updated priority of the issue (optional)
`state_id`	No	Updated state ID of the issue (optional)
`assignees`	No	Updated array of user IDs to assign to this issue (optional)

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but is inadequate. It mentions updating and a deletion method, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. The deletion note is vague and doesn't explain if it's a standard feature or workaround.

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 concise with two clauses, but the second clause about deletion is poorly integrated and confusing, reducing clarity. It's front-loaded with the main purpose but the additional note doesn't earn its place effectively, making the structure somewhat disjointed.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, return values, and how it differs from siblings. The deletion note adds confusion rather than completeness, failing to provide adequate context for safe and effective use.

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 schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining interactions between fields or special cases. It mentions 'delete' or 'remove' for the title but doesn't tie this to the 'name' parameter clearly.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('existing issue in a project'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create-issue' or 'get-issue' beyond the update action, and the second part about deleting with 'delete' or 'remove' is confusing rather than clarifying.

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 like 'create-issue' or 'get-issue'. It mentions a deletion method but doesn't clarify if this is the primary deletion mechanism or when to use it over other tools, offering minimal usage context.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

6 tool updatesOct 1, 2025
- First observedcreate-issue
- First observedget-issue
- First observedget-project
- First observedlist-issues
- First observedlist-projects
- First observedupdate-issue

Deploy Server

Pay for results, not tokens.Fund a bounty. Let AI agents compete and collaborate to solve your problems.agentbounties.appAd

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Scored 2026-04-18 11:00 across 6 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity: create-issue, get-issue, update-issue, and list-issues handle issues, while get-project and list-projects handle projects. The descriptions reinforce this separation, making misselection unlikely.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with hyphen separation (e.g., create-issue, list-projects). This predictable naming scheme enhances readability and usability across the tool set.

Tool Count5/5

With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for managing issues and projects in a workspace. Each tool earns its place by covering essential CRUD operations without being overly sparse or bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool set provides strong coverage for issues (create, get, list, update) and projects (get, list), but lacks explicit create-project, update-project, and delete operations. Agents can work around this with the update-issue workaround for deletion, but minor gaps exist.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessUnresponsive

Resources

GitHub Repository

Need Help?

Reddit Discussion

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

hithereiamaliff-mcp-nextcloudOAuth
ai.smithery
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Cloud Storage File Systems Workplace & Productivity
238
Mercado PagoOAuth
com.mercadopago.mcp
The Mercado Pago MCP Server implements the Model Context Protocol to provide AI agents and LLMs with access to Mercado Pago's APIs and tools within compatible development environments. It acts as an intermediary that translates Mercado Pago resources into executable functions (tools) that AI applications can invoke to perform actions and automate flows. The server simplifies integration, enables using documentation to implement or improve code, and optimizes operations through natural language interactions without manual implementations.
Finance E-commerce & Retail App Automation
2
Apideck MCP A
dev.apideck.mcp
Model Context Protocol server for the Apideck Unified API. Connect any MCP-compatible agent framework to 100+ accounting systems, HRIS platforms, file storage providers, and more through one integration. More information https://www.apideck.com/mcp-server
Developer Tools
42
Sentry AOAuth
dev.sentry.mcp
Enable secure connectivity between Sentry issues and debugging data, and LLM clients, using a Model Context Protocol (MCP) server.
Monitoring Developer Tools Observability
3

Related MCP Servers

Linear MCP Server
Project Management Developer Tools
magarcia
A
license
A
quality
C
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol server that enables large language models to interact with Linear's issue tracking system, allowing management of issues, projects, teams, and other Linear resources.
Updated 2 years ago (2025-03-24 09:18 UTC)
19
35 npm
1
MIT
Plane MCP Serverofficial
Project Management Developer Tools
makeplane
A
license
B
quality
A
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol server that enables AI interfaces to seamlessly interact with Plane's project management system, allowing management of projects, issues, states, and other work items through a standardized API.
Updated 10 days ago (2026-09-29 08:24 UTC)
5
46
121 npm
336
MIT
Plane MCP Server
Project Management Developer Tools
disrex-group
A
license
B
quality
C
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables LLMs to interact with Plane.so, allowing them to manage projects and issues through Plane's API. Using this server, LLMs like Claude can directly interact with your project management workflows while maintaining user control and security.
Updated a year ago (2025-08-27 12:13 UTC)
76
10 npm
1
MIT
Plane MCP
Project Management Developer Tools
Rockysingh116
A
license
B
quality
D
maintenance
An MCP server that enables LLMs to fully manage a Plane workspace, including projects, work items, states, labels, cycles, modules, comments, and members.
Updated 4 months ago (2026-06-22 13:08 UTC)
38
MIT

Plane MCP Server

Merkmale

Voraussetzungen

Installation

Option 1: Schmiedekunst verwenden

Option 2: Manuelle Einrichtung

Verwendung mit Claude für Desktop

Verfügbare Tools

Liste-Projekte

Projekt abrufen

Problem erstellen

Listenprobleme

Problem abrufen

Update-Problem

Entwicklung

Testen

Beispiele

Sicherheitsüberlegungen

Beitragen

Lizenz

Unterstützung

Sternengeschichte

Available Tools

Tool Schema Changelog

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Plane MCP Serverofficial

Appeared in Searches