Plane MCP Server

detach_page_from_work_item

Remove a page link from a work item. Provide project_id, work_item_id, and work_item_page_id to detach the page.

Instructions

Remove a page link from a work item.

Args: project_id: UUID of the project work_item_id: UUID of the work item work_item_page_id: UUID of the work item page link (not the page ID)

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_page_id": "<work_item_page_id>"
    },
    "name": "detach_page_from_work_item"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes
`work_item_id`	Yes
`work_item_page_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.11Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool removes a link (not the page itself), but it does not mention permissions, reversibility, side effects, or return behavior, leaving significant ambiguity for a mutation operation.

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 front-loaded with the action, followed by a clean, concise parameter list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 detach operation, the description covers the basic action and parameters, but it lacks detail on expected behavior after removal (e.g., whether the page remains) and any return values or error conditions. Given no output schema or annotations, this is a moderate gap.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description adds meaningful context for all three parameters, explicitly clarifying that work_item_page_id is the link ID, not the page ID. This maps each parameter to its purpose beyond the raw schema.

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 first sentence 'Remove a page link from a work item' clearly states the specific action and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings like attach_page_to_work_item by focusing on the opposite operation.

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?

The description implies the tool is for removing a page link from a work item, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. No alternative tools are mentioned, so guidance is minimal.

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

Deploy Server