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.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so 'Read-only' is largely redundant with structured data. The description adds a GraphQL mapping hint and the field shape of results, which is useful but thin behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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?
One front-loaded sentence packed with the scope, optional filter, and returned fields, followed by a short GraphQL tag. Efficient overall, though the GraphQL suffix is marginal implementation detail rather than agent-facing guidance.
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?
With no output schema, the description helpfully names returned fields (number, name, start/end dates), covering the gap. It does not state result ordering or pagination behavior, but for a low-complexity two-parameter read tool this is nearly complete.
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 description coverage is 100% (both 'first' and 'teamKey' are documented with examples), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's 'team by key' restates the schema rather than adding format, defaults, or constraints beyond it.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('List cycles'), disambiguates the domain term with '(sprints)', and names the returned fields. 'Cycles' is a distinct resource from every sibling tool (issues, projects, teams, comments), so an agent can select it without inspecting schemas.
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?
'Optionally scoped to a team by key' describes the parameter behavior rather than when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-not conditions or sibling alternatives are named, so usage is only implied by the resource name.
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.