linear_my_issuesList issues assigned to the current user (the API key's owner / OAuth actor) via viewer.assignedIssues. Read-only. GraphQL: query viewer { assignedIssues }.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| first | No | Max issues to return. Default 25. |
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?
The description mentions 'Read-only' and the underlying GraphQL query, providing some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, or response structure (e.g., fields returned, pagination). Since no annotations are provided, the description should have offered more transparency.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two sentences that convey purpose, scope, and technical detail. Every clause adds value without waste.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description covers core purpose and read-only nature. However, it does not mention what fields are returned or pagination behavior. With no annotations, additional completeness would help, but it remains minimally adequate.
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?
The input schema provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter 'first', including a description, default, and constraints. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists issues assigned to the current user, specifying the verb 'list' and the resource 'issues assigned to the current user'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like linear_search_issues (which searches broadly) by focusing on the viewer's assigned issues.
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 retrieving the current user's assigned issues, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., linear_search_issues for searching all issues, linear_get_issue for a specific issue). No exclusions or when-not contexts are provided.
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.