Plane MCP Server
Related Servers
Alternatives to Plane MCP Server
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
AlicenseBqualityAmaintenanceA 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.46121 npm333MIT- AlicenseBqualityFmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables LLMs to interact with Plane.so, allowing them to manage projects and issues through Plane's API for streamlined project management workflows.640MIT
- AlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceA 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.7619 npm1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for integrating AI agents with the Plane project management platform, providing tools to manage projects, work items, cycles, modules, and more.MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables LLMs to fully manage a Plane workspace, including projects, work items, states, labels, cycles, modules, comments, and members.38MIT
- AlicenseCqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for Plane integration, enabling AI agents to interact with Plane APIs and services for project management tasks.100MIT
TDQS
Scored across 177 tools
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action; even the many list_* variants (cycle/module/milestone/release/customer work items) are clearly differentiated by name and description. The handful of manage_* tools are each scoped to a unique association type, so there is no meaningful overlap.
The vast majority follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_, create_, retrieve_, update_, delete_). Minor deviations exist: get_ is used for some reads (get_me, get_features, get_project_members) while retrieve_ is used for resource fetches, and read_work_item_attachment breaks the pattern, but the conventions are still predictable and readable.
177 tools is an extreme mismatch for an MCP server surface; even large API client servers rarely warrant this many. Agents will struggle to select from such a huge menu, and the count far exceeds the recommended upper bound.
CRUD/lifecycle coverage is nearly complete for all major resources (projects, work items, cycles, modules, initiatives, labels, states, milestones, releases, customers, properties, types), including specialized sub-resources like comments, attachments, relations, and work logs. The only notable gaps are missing update/delete for pages and a few workspace-level operations.