Skip to main content
Glama
makeplane

Plane MCP Server

Official
by makeplane

get_issue_type

Retrieve details of a specific issue type by providing its project and type identifiers through the Plane MCP Server, enabling efficient project management and issue tracking.

Instructions

Get details of a specific issue type

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesThe uuid identifier of the project containing the issue type
type_idYesThe uuid identifier of the issue type to get

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function that fetches the details of a specific issue type by making a GET request to the Plane API endpoint and returns the JSON response as text content.
    async ({ project_id, type_id }) => {
      const response = await makePlaneRequest(
        "GET",
        `workspaces/${process.env.PLANE_WORKSPACE_SLUG}/projects/${project_id}/issue-types/${type_id}/`
      );
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify(response, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Zod input schema defining the required parameters: project_id and type_id as strings with descriptions.
    {
      project_id: z.string().describe("The uuid identifier of the project containing the issue type"),
      type_id: z.string().describe("The uuid identifier of the issue type to get"),
    },
  • Direct registration of the get_issue_type tool on the MCP server, including name, description, input schema, and handler function.
    server.tool(
      "get_issue_type",
      "Get details of a specific issue type",
      {
        project_id: z.string().describe("The uuid identifier of the project containing the issue type"),
        type_id: z.string().describe("The uuid identifier of the issue type to get"),
      },
      async ({ project_id, type_id }) => {
        const response = await makePlaneRequest(
          "GET",
          `workspaces/${process.env.PLANE_WORKSPACE_SLUG}/projects/${project_id}/issue-types/${type_id}/`
        );
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: JSON.stringify(response, null, 2),
            },
          ],
        };
      }
    );
  • Top-level call to registerMetadataTools, which registers the get_issue_type tool among others.
    registerMetadataTools(server);
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's safe, idempotent, requires authentication, or has rate limits. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be more informative. The structure is front-loaded but lacks depth, earning a high score for conciseness but not perfect due to under-specification.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple tool with 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, error conditions, or how it fits into the broader context of issue management. This leaves gaps for an agent to understand full tool behavior.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (project_id and type_id). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it doesn't explain parameter relationships or usage. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get details of a specific issue type' clearly states the action (get) and resource (issue type), but it's vague about what 'details' include and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'list_issue_types' or 'get_issue_using_readable_identifier'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about scope or output.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as needing a project_id and type_id versus using list_issue_types for browsing. This leaves the agent without direction on tool selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/makeplane/plane-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server