Plane MCP Server

create_work_item_relation

Relate a work item to one or more target work items using built-in or custom relation types in Plane.

Instructions

Relate a work item to one or more targets.

Always call list_work_item_relation_definitions first and match the user's wording to an entry there. If it is a built_in_dependencies value, pass it as relation_type. If it is a custom_definitions entry, pass that definition's id as relation_definition_id and the matched outward/inward label as relation_definition_label (the label sets directionality).

Args: project_id: UUID of the project. work_item_id: UUID of the source work item. work_item_ids: UUIDs of the target work items. relation_type: A built_in_dependencies value, or None for a custom relation. relation_definition_id: UUID of the relation definition (custom relations). relation_definition_label: Definition's outward or inward label (custom relations).

Returns: List of created WorkItemWithRelationType objects.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "work_item_id": "<work_item_id>",
      "work_item_ids": "<work_item_ids>"
    },
    "name": "create_work_item_relation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes
`work_item_id`	Yes
`relation_type`	No
`work_item_ids`	Yes
`relation_definition_id`	No
`relation_definition_label`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.11Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It explains core behavior like directionality via relation_definition_label and the creation of relation entries, but it does not disclose potential side effects, idempotency, or failure modes. This is adequate but not rich.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured with intro, prerequisite, branching instructions, and an Args list. It is slightly long but each sentence serves a purpose, making it appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers all parameters, return type, and the critical prerequisite of calling list_work_item_relation_definitions. While it does not mention error conditions or edge cases, the presence of an output schema and the explicit conditioning make it sufficiently complete for this complex tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section fully explains every parameter, including the conditional logic for relation_type vs relation_definition_id and the role of relation_definition_label. This compensates completely for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Relate') and clearly identifies the resource ('a work item') and targets. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_work_item_link by referencing relation definitions and directionality, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Always call list_work_item_relation_definitions first' and details how to handle built-in vs custom relation definitions. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives, but the prerequisite and branching logic offer clear context.

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

Deploy Server