Plane MCP Server

list_intake_work_items

Fetch all intake work items for a project by providing its project ID. Use optional query parameters to paginate through results.

Instructions

List all intake work items in a project.

Args: workspace_slug: The workspace slug identifier project_id: UUID of the project params: Optional query parameters as a dictionary (e.g., per_page, cursor)

Returns: List of IntakeWorkItem 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>"
    },
    "name": "list_intake_work_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	No
`project_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.11Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions return type but omits pagination behavior and includes a workspace_slug parameter not present in the schema, creating a misleading behavioral expectation.

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 brief and front-loaded with a clear summary, but the Args section includes an invalid parameter, slightly marring otherwise clean structure.

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?

The tool is a simple list operation and an output schema exists, but the description omits pagination defaults and introduces a phantom parameter. It would benefit from clarifying the relationship to list_work_items.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The description adds some meaning for project_id and params (e.g., UUID, query dictionary examples), but it also lists workspace_slug, which the schema rejects via additionalProperties:false. This conflicting information undermines parameter clarity given 0% schema coverage.

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 'List all intake work items in a project' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It naturally differentiates from sibling list_work_items by specifying 'intake' items.

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 clear context that this tool is for listing intake work items in a project, making its use case apparent. However, it does not explicitly reference alternatives or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server