Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PinchMCP

PinchMCP

by 0xEl1yahu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Build feature graph

build_feature_graph

Fetches Linear project issues and blocking relations to rebuild the dependency graph, identifying the keystone ticket that unblocks the most downstream work.

Instructions

Fetch a Linear project's issues and blocking relations and (re)build the in-memory dependency graph. project_id accepts a project name, URL slug, or UUID.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "build_feature_graph"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesLinear project name, URL slug, or UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'rebuild' implying overwrite, and 'in-memory' suggests ephemerality, but doesn't disclose side effects, cost, or whether it modifies persistent state. Adequate but not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, each earning their place. The first explains the action, the second details the parameter. No fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and parameter. However, it could mention that the built graph is used by sibling tools, which would enhance completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description repeats the same info (project name, URL slug, or UUID) without adding new meaning. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as no added value beyond schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it fetches issues and blocking relations and (re)builds an in-memory dependency graph for a Linear project. This distinguishes it from siblings that analyze or rank existing graphs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'rank_keystones' or 'critical_path'. The agent must infer that this tool builds the graph for subsequent analysis, but no explicit direction is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools