linear_list_cyclesList cycles (sprints), optionally scoped to a team by key, with number, name and start/end dates. Read-only. GraphQL: query cycles(filter).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| first | No | Max cycles to return. Default 25. | |
| teamKey | No | Team key, e.g. "ENG", to scope cycles to one team. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and mentions the GraphQL query used, providing good transparency about the tool's safety profile and expected behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the read-only nature and GraphQL hint are efficiently included.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the return fields (number, name, start/end dates) and mentions the GraphQL query. Given no output schema and low parameter count, this is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the teamKey parameter ('optionally scoped to a team by key') and the returned fields, which helps the agent understand the output.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and resource 'cycles', and adds detail about optional team scoping and returned fields (number, name, start/end dates). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like linear_list_projects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing cycles with optional team filtering, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like linear_list_projects or linear_search_issues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: adding comments, creating issues, fetching by ID, listing cycles/projects/teams, viewing assigned issues, and searching. No ambiguity between them.
All tools follow a 'linear_' prefix with verb_noun pattern (e.g., linear_create_issue, linear_list_teams). The exception is 'linear_my_issues' which is not strictly verb_noun but still intuitive.
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for a project management integration. It covers core operations without being overwhelming or sparse.
Covers basic CRUD for issues (create, get, comment) and listing of projects/cycles/teams, but missing update_issue and delete_issue, which are notable gaps for a complete workflow.