Plane MCP Server

retrieve_release_tag

Retrieve a release tag by its unique ID to get the complete tag information from Plane.

Instructions

Retrieve a release tag by ID.

Args: tag_id: UUID of the release tag

Returns: The ReleaseTag

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": {
      "tag_id": "<tag_id>"
    },
    "name": "retrieve_release_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tag_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`name`	No
`color`	No
`git_tag`	No
`version`	No
`workspace`	No
`created_at`	No
`sort_order`	No
`updated_at`	No
`commit_hash`	No
`description`	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, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious 'retrieve' operation. It does not disclose permissions, error behavior, side effects, or any constraints. The 'Returns: The ReleaseTag' line is helpful but minimal.

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 extremely concise: a single purpose sentence, a one-line arg explanation, and a one-line return note. Every element earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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?

For a simple retrieve-by-ID tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It lacks explicit error handling or not-found behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it covers the essentials well.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section explicitly explains tag_id as 'UUID of the release tag', adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's plain string type. This is sufficient for the single parameter.

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 'Retrieve a release tag by ID' – a specific verb (retrieve) with a specific resource (release tag) and the identifier method (by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_release_tags, create_release_tag, update_release_tag, and delete_release_tag.

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 is implied (use when you have a tag_id to fetch a single tag), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over list_release_tags or other alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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

Deploy Server