linear_list_projectsList projects in the workspace (id, name, state, progress, target date). Read-only. GraphQL: query projects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| first | No | Max projects to return. Default 50. |
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?
No annotations provided, so description must convey behavioral traits. States 'Read-only', which is crucial, but lacks details on pagination, rate limits, or auth requirements. Fails to fully compensate for missing 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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences convey purpose, scope, and key behavior (read-only, GraphQL). No filler or redundancy.
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?
For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, read-only nature, and returned fields. Lacks details on pagination behavior but is sufficient given low complexity.
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%, with the 'first' parameter well-described in the schema (max 250, default 50). Description adds no additional meaning or usage context for the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Clearly states 'List projects' with specific verb and resource, and enumerates returned fields (id, name, state, progress, target date). Distinct from sibling tools like linear_create_issue or linear_list_cycles.
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?
Implied read-only usage by the 'Read-only' tag, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Alternatives not mentioned, though sibling tool names provide context.
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.