Plane MCP Server

retrieve_release

Fetches a specific release from Plane using its UUID, returning the release object for further processing.

Instructions

Retrieve a release by ID.

Args: release_id: UUID of the release

Returns: The Release

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": {
      "release_id": "<release_id>"
    },
    "name": "retrieve_release"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`release_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`tag`	No
`lead`	No
`name`	No
`status`	No
`is_latest`	No
`workspace`	No
`created_at`	No
`created_by`	No
`logo_props`	No
`start_date`	No
`updated_at`	No
`updated_by`	No
`description`	No
`external_id`	No
`target_date`	No
`release_date`	No
`is_prerelease`	No
`external_source`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.11Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Returns: The Release' but does not mention error cases (e.g., not found), permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. For a retrieval tool, this is a notable gap.

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: a one-line purpose, an args list, and a returns line. There is no redundant or filler text, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one required parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the input and the return type. However, it lacks information about error handling or edge cases, so it falls just short of full 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 coverage, the description must compensate. It adds semantic value by specifying that release_id is a UUID, which is more informative than the schema's generic 'string' type. The single parameter is clearly documented in the Args section.

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 uses a specific verb 'Retrieve' with a specific resource 'release by ID', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_releases or retrieve_release_tag. It unambiguously states what the tool does.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you have a release ID and need a single release. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., list_releases) or state when not to use it, leaving some room for an agent to infer.

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

Deploy Server