Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
kelvin6365

Plane MCP Server

by kelvin6365
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

飛行機MCPサーバー

鍛冶屋のバッジ

モデルコンテキストプロトコル（MCP）サーバーは、LLMがPlane.soと連携し、PlaneのAPIを介してプロジェクトや課題を管理できるようにします。このサーバーを使用することで、ClaudeのようなLLMは、ユーザーの制御とセキュリティを維持しながら、プロジェクト管理ワークフローに直接アクセスできるようになります。

特徴

  • 平面ワークスペース内のすべてのプロジェクトを一覧表示する

  • 特定のプロジェクトに関する詳細情報を入手する

  • カスタマイズ可能なプロパティで新しい問題を作成する

  • プロジェクトからの問題の一覧表示とフィルタリング

  • 特定の問題に関する詳細情報を取得する

  • 既存の問題を新しい情報で更新する

Related MCP server: Plane MCP Server

前提条件

  • Node.js 22.x 以上

  • Plane.so APIキー

  • Plane.so ワークスペース

インストール

オプション1: Smitheryを使用する

最も早く始める方法は、Smithery を使用してサーバーを直接インストールすることです。

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

このコマンドは、Claudeで使用するためのPlane MCPサーバーを自動的にセットアップします。インストール後、Claudeの設定でPlane APIキーとワークスペーススラッグを使用してサーバーを設定する必要があります。

有効なクライアント オプションは次のとおりです: claude、cline、windsurf、roo-cline、witsy、enconvo、cursor

カーソルを使用してインストールする例:

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

オプション2: 手動セットアップ

サーバーを手動でセットアップする場合は、次の手順に従ってください。

  1. このリポジトリをクローンします:

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

  1. 依存関係をインストールします:

npm install

  1. サーバーを構築します。

npm run build

Claude for Desktop での使用

**注:**上記のオプション 1 (Smithery) を使用した場合は、このセクションをスキップできます。Smithery が MCP サーバーを自動的に構成します。

  1. Claude for Desktop の構成ファイルを開きます。

    • macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json

    • Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json

  2. Plane MCP サーバー構成を追加します。

{
  "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"
      }
    }
  }
}

  1. デスクトップ版のClaudeを再起動する

利用可能なツール

**注:**ツール名にはアンダースコアではなくハイフン（例： list-projects ）を使用します。サーバーは互換性を保つため、アンダースコアをハイフンに自動的に変換します。

プロジェクト一覧

Plane ワークスペース内のすべてのプロジェクトを一覧表示します。

パラメータ: なし

例：

{}

プロジェクトを取得

特定のプロジェクトに関する詳細情報を取得します。

パラメータ:

  • project_id : 取得するプロジェクトのID

例：

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

問題作成

指定されたプロジェクトに新しい問題を作成します。

パラメータ:

  • project_id : 問題を作成するプロジェクトのID

  • name : 問題のタイトル

  • description_html : 問題の HTML 説明 (Plane API で必須)

  • priority （オプション）：問題の優先度（「緊急」、「高」、「中」、「低」、「なし」）

  • state_id (オプション): この問題の状態のID

  • assignees （オプション）: この問題に割り当てるユーザーIDの配列

注: assigneesパラメータはユーザーID文字列の配列である必要があります。よくあるエラーとしては、配列ではなく辞書/オブジェクトを指定したり、担当者フィールド内に課題データ全体を誤ってネストしたりすることが挙げられます。サーバーはこれらのケースを適切に処理しようとしますが、正しい形式を使用することを推奨します。

例：

{
  "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"]
}

リストの問題

オプションのフィルタリングを使用して、指定されたプロジェクトの問題を一覧表示します。

パラメータ:

  • project_id : 課題を取得するプロジェクトのID

  • state_id (オプション): 州IDでフィルタリング

  • priority （オプション）: 優先度でフィルタリング

  • assignee_id (オプション): 担当者IDでフィルタリング

  • limit (オプション): 返される問題の最大数 (デフォルト: 50)

例：

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

問題を取得する

特定の問題に関する詳細情報を取得します。

パラメータ:

  • project_id : 問題を含むプロジェクトのID

  • issue_id : 取得する問題のID

例：

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

アップデートの問題

プロジェクト内の既存の問題を更新します。

パラメータ:

  • project_id : 問題を含むプロジェクトのID

  • issue_id : 更新する問題のID

  • name （オプション）: 問題の更新されたタイトル

  • description_html (オプション): 問題の HTML 説明 (Plane API で必須)

  • priority （オプション）: 問題の更新された優先度

  • state_id (オプション): 問題の更新された状態ID

  • assignees （オプション）: この問題に割り当てるユーザーIDの更新された配列

注: assigneesパラメータは、問題作成ツールと同じ形式のガイドラインに従ったユーザー ID 文字列の配列である必要があります。

例：

{
  "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>"
}

発達

  1. 開発依存関係をインストールします。

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

  1. 開発モードでサーバーを起動します。

npm run dev

テスト

MCP Inspector を使用してサーバーをテストできます。

npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector node dist/index.js

例

以下は、Plane MCP サーバーをセットアップした後に Claude と試すことができるやり取りの例です。

  1. 「Plane ワークスペース内のすべてのプロジェクトを一覧表示できますか?」

  2. 「マーケティング プロジェクトに、「ソーシャル メディア戦略の更新」というタイトルの新しい高優先度の問題を作成してください。」

  3. 「開発プロジェクトにおける最優先事項は何ですか？」

  4. 「QA プロジェクトの問題 #123 を更新して、優先度を緊急に変更します」

Claude は適切なツールを使用して Plane と対話し、問題を作成または変更する前にユーザーの承認を求めます。

セキュリティに関する考慮事項

  • APIキーが機能するには適切なPlane権限が必要です

  • データを変更するすべての操作には、明示的なユーザー承認が必要です。

  • 環境変数は適切に保護する必要がある

  • APIキーはバージョン管理にコミットしてはならない

貢献

  1. リポジトリをフォークする

  2. 機能ブランチを作成します（ git checkout -b feature/amazing-feature ）

  3. 変更をコミットします ( git commit -m 'Add some amazing feature' )

  4. ブランチにプッシュする ( git push origin feature/amazing-feature )

  5. プルリクエストを開く

ライセンス

このプロジェクトは MIT ライセンスに基づいてライセンスされています - 詳細については LICENSE ファイルを参照してください。

サポート

問題が発生した場合や質問がある場合は、次の手順に従ってください。

  1. GitHubのIssuesセクションを確認してください

  2. modelcontextprotocol.ioの MCP ドキュメントを参照してください。

  3. 詳細な再現手順を記載した新しい問題を開く

スターの歴史

星の歴史チャート

Available Tools

6 tools
create-issueC

Create a new issue in a project

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesID of the project where the issue should be created
nameYesTitle of the issue
description_htmlNoHTML description of the issue (required by Plane API)
priorityNoPriority of the issue (urgent, high, medium, low, none)
state_idNoID of the state for this issue (optional)
assigneesNoArray 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesID of the project containing the issue
issue_idYesID 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesID 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesID of the project to get issues from
state_idNoFilter by state ID (optional)
priorityNoFilter by priority (optional)
assignee_idNoFilter by assignee ID (optional)
limitNoMaximum 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesID of the project containing the issue
issue_idYesID of the issue to update
nameNoUpdated title of the issue (optional)
description_htmlNoHTML description of the issue (required by Plane API)
priorityNoUpdated priority of the issue (optional)
state_idNoUpdated state ID of the issue (optional)
assigneesNoUpdated 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.

  1. 6 tool updates
    • 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 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

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • Linear MCP Server

    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.
    19
    35 npm
    1
    MIT
  • Plane MCP Server by makeplane

    Plane MCP Serverofficial

    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.
    5
    46
    121 npm
    336
    MIT

  • Plane MCP Server

    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.
    76
    10 npm
    1
    MIT

  • Plane MCP

    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.
    38
    MIT

Appeared in Searches