Skip to main content
Glama
makeplane

Plane MCP Server

Official
by makeplane

get_total_worklogs

Calculate total logged time for a specific project by providing its unique identifier through the Plane MCP Server, aiding in tracking project progress.

Instructions

Get total logged time for a project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesThe uuid identifier of the project to get total worklogs for

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the tool: makes a GET request to the Plane API for total worklogs of a project and returns the JSON response as text content.
    async ({ project_id }) => {
      const response = await makePlaneRequest(
        "GET",
        `workspaces/${process.env.PLANE_WORKSPACE_SLUG}/projects/${project_id}/total-worklogs/`
      );
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify(response, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Zod input schema defining the project_id parameter for the tool.
    {
      project_id: z.string().describe("The uuid identifier of the project to get total worklogs for"),
    },
  • Registration of the get_total_worklogs tool using server.tool(), including description, schema, and inline handler.
    server.tool(
      "get_total_worklogs",
      "Get total logged time for a project",
      {
        project_id: z.string().describe("The uuid identifier of the project to get total worklogs for"),
      },
      async ({ project_id }) => {
        const response = await makePlaneRequest(
          "GET",
          `workspaces/${process.env.PLANE_WORKSPACE_SLUG}/projects/${project_id}/total-worklogs/`
        );
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: JSON.stringify(response, null, 2),
            },
          ],
        };
      }
    );
  • Higher-level registration call to registerWorkLogTools(server), which registers the get_total_worklogs tool among others.
    registerWorkLogTools(server);
  • Supporting utility function makePlaneRequest used by the handler to perform authenticated HTTP requests to the Plane API.
    export async function makePlaneRequest<T>(method: string, path: string, body: any = null): Promise<T> {
      const hostUrl = process.env.PLANE_API_HOST_URL || "https://api.plane.so/";
      const host = hostUrl.endsWith("/") ? hostUrl : `${hostUrl}/`;
      const url = `${host}api/v1/${path}`;
      const headers: Record<string, string> = {
        "X-API-Key": process.env.PLANE_API_KEY || "",
      };
    
      // Only add Content-Type for non-GET requests
      if (method.toUpperCase() !== "GET") {
        headers["Content-Type"] = "application/json";
      }
    
      try {
        const config: AxiosRequestConfig = {
          url,
          method,
          headers,
        };
    
        // Only include body for non-GET requests
        if (method.toUpperCase() !== "GET" && body !== null) {
          config.data = body;
        }
    
        const response = await axios(config);
        return response.data;
      } catch (error) {
        if (axios.isAxiosError(error)) {
          throw new Error(`Request failed: ${error.message}`);
        }
        throw error;
      }
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format might be (e.g., time units, aggregation method). This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the complexity of a data retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'total logged time' entails (e.g., summed worklogs, time range, units) or the return structure, leaving gaps that could hinder correct tool invocation by an AI agent.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'project_id' parameter well-documented as a UUID. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('total logged time for a project'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_issue_worklogs' or 'get_projects', which could also involve retrieving work-related data, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as whether it aggregates data from other tools or if it's for summary purposes only. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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