linear_list_teamsList the teams in the workspace (id, key, name). Use a team's id for linear_create_issue or its key for linear_search_issues. Read-only. GraphQL: query teams.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| first | No | Max teams 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?
Declares 'Read-only' and mentions the underlying GraphQL query, which adds transparency. With no annotations provided, the description adequately conveys the safe, non-destructive nature. Could disclose more about rate limits or response structure, but sufficient for a simple list operation.
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?
Three sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose and return fields, second gives usage guidance, third declares read-only and underlying technology. Well-structured and front-loaded.
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?
Covers the essential aspects: return fields, read-only nature, and underlying query. Does not mention pagination behavior (though 'first' parameter handles it) or ordering, but for a simple list tool it is reasonably 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% for the single parameter 'first', so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any extra meaning beyond what is already in the schema; it merely repeats the parameter in the context of the overall function.
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 the teams in the workspace (id, key, name).' The verb 'list' and resource 'teams' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like linear_list_cycles and linear_list_projects by focusing on teams, and also provides downstream usage hints.
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?
Provides clear context on how to use the output: team id for linear_create_issue, team key for linear_search_issues. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.
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.