PinchMCP

Surface graph hygiene gaps

surface_gaps

Identify planning gaps in a project's dependency graph: cycles, isolated tickets, and keystone tickets without estimates or owners.

Instructions

Report deterministic planning gaps in a project's dependency graph: cycles, isolated tickets, and high-leverage (keystone) tickets missing an estimate or owner. Analysis only — asserts nothing, writes nothing. project_id accepts a name, 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": "surface_gaps"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes	Linear project name, URL slug, or UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, description fully carries behavioral disclosure, clearly stating it is analysis-only and non-destructive. Details what gaps are reported. No mention of rate limits or data freshness, but transparency is adequate for a read-only analysis tool.

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 delivering core purpose and key behavioral context. No fluff or redundancy. Front-loaded with the most critical information (what it reports, that it's read-only, parameter flexibility).

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given single required parameter and no output schema, description adequately specifies input (project_id) and output content (cycles, isolated tickets, keystone gaps). Sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly among siblings.

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 coverage is 100% with one parameter fully described. Description repeats the same info (name, slug, UUID) without adding new semantics beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool reports deterministic planning gaps: cycles, isolated tickets, and keystone tickets missing estimates or owners. It distinguishes from siblings like rank_keystones and critical_path by focusing on hygiene gaps and emphasizing analysis-only behavior.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly states 'Analysis only — asserts nothing, writes nothing,' clarifying appropriate usage for read-only analysis. Provides parameter flexibility (name, slug, UUID). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references for deeper context.

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

Deploy Server