Skip to main content
Glama
makeplane

Plane MCP Server

Official
by makeplane

update_worklog

Modify an existing worklog in Plane MCP Server by updating fields like description, duration, and timestamps using project, issue, and worklog identifiers. Simplifies work item management within project workflows.

Instructions

Update an existing worklog

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issue_idYesThe uuid identifier of the issue containing the worklog
project_idYesThe uuid identifier of the project containing the issue
worklog_dataYesThe fields to update on the worklog
worklog_idYesThe uuid identifier of the worklog to update

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'update_worklog' tool, which makes a PATCH request to the Plane API to update the specified worklog.
    async ({ project_id, issue_id, worklog_id, worklog_data }) => {
      const response = await makePlaneRequest(
        "PATCH",
        `workspaces/${process.env.PLANE_WORKSPACE_SLUG}/projects/${project_id}/issues/${issue_id}/worklogs/${worklog_id}/`,
        worklog_data
      );
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify(response, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • Direct registration of the 'update_worklog' tool using server.tool(), including name, description, input schema, and handler.
    server.tool(
      "update_worklog",
      "Update an existing worklog",
      {
        project_id: z.string().describe("The uuid identifier of the project containing the issue"),
        issue_id: z.string().describe("The uuid identifier of the issue containing the worklog"),
        worklog_id: z.string().describe("The uuid identifier of the worklog to update"),
        worklog_data: IssueWorkLog.partial().describe("The fields to update on the worklog"),
      },
      async ({ project_id, issue_id, worklog_id, worklog_data }) => {
        const response = await makePlaneRequest(
          "PATCH",
          `workspaces/${process.env.PLANE_WORKSPACE_SLUG}/projects/${project_id}/issues/${issue_id}/worklogs/${worklog_id}/`,
          worklog_data
        );
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: JSON.stringify(response, null, 2),
            },
          ],
        };
      }
    );
  • Zod schema definition for IssueWorkLog, which is used in the tool's input schema for worklog_data via IssueWorkLog.partial().
    export const IssueWorkLog = z.object({
      issue_id: z.string().uuid(),
      description: z.string().optional(),
      logged_by_id: z.string().uuid(),
      duration: z.number().int().min(0).describe("The duration of the worklog in minutes"),
      created_at: z.string().datetime(),
      updated_at: z.string().datetime(),
      project_id: z.string().uuid(),
      workspace_id: z.string().uuid(),
    });
    
    export type IssueWorkLog = z.infer<typeof IssueWorkLog>;
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. 'Update an existing worklog' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether updates are partial or complete, what happens to unspecified fields, error conditions, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant 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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update'), though it lacks detail. Every word earns its place, making it efficient despite being under-specified.

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 (4 required parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error handling, or how it fits into the broader context of worklog management with siblings like 'create_worklog' and 'delete_worklog'. For a mutation tool with rich schema but no annotations or output schema, more guidance is needed.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., 'issue_id' as 'The uuid identifier of the issue containing the worklog'). The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update an existing worklog' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('worklog'), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'update_issue' or other update tools, nor does it specify what aspects of a worklog can be updated. It's a generic statement that could apply to any update operation.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing worklog), when not to use it (e.g., for creating vs. updating), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create_worklog' or 'delete_worklog'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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