Plane MCP Server

list_work_item_pages

Retrieve all pages linked to a specific work item by providing its project and work item IDs.

Instructions

List all pages linked to a work item.

Args: project_id: UUID of the project work_item_id: UUID of the work item

Returns: List of WorkItemPage link 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>"
    },
    "name": "list_work_item_pages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes
`work_item_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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavior. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state read-only, pagination, permissions, or side effects. It mentions the return type but not behavioral traits.

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 concise and well-structured: main action first, then args, then returns. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundant text.

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 list tool, the description covers purpose, args, and return type. However, it lacks usage alternatives, behavioral notes, and potential edge cases (e.g., pagination, ordering). Given the sibling tools, more comparison context would improve completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter as 'UUID of the project' and 'UUID of the work item'. This adds meaningful context beyond the parameter names, though it could specify the relationship more precisely.

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 pages linked to a work item' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_pages (lists all pages) and page attach/detach tools.

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 implied usage is when needing pages for a specific work item, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare with alternatives like list_pages. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

Deploy Server