Linear MCP Server

linear_bulk_update_issues

Update multiple Linear issues simultaneously by specifying their UUIDs and setting new state, assignee, or priority.

Instructions

Update multiple issues at once

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": {
      "issueIds": "<issueIds>",
      "update": "<update>"
    },
    "name": "linear_bulk_update_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issueIds`	Yes	List of issue UUIDs to update (not issue identifiers like 'ENG-123')
`update`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.6.0Jun 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as atomicity, partial failure behavior, idempotency, or concurrency. The simple statement 'Update multiple issues at once' lacks depth.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is extremely concise (4 words) but not tautological. It could include more context without sacrificing conciseness, but it is front-loaded and to the point.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given complexity (nested object, no output schema, no annotations, 2 required params), the description is incomplete. It does not cover return values, error handling, rate limits, or prerequisites for using the tool.

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 50% but the input schema includes descriptions for all parameters (issueIds, update with nested properties). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; baseline 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 'Update multiple issues at once' clearly states the action (update), resource (issues), and scope (multiple/at once). It distinguishes from sibling tools like linear_edit_issue (single issue) and linear_create_issues (create).

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 (e.g., linear_edit_issue for single updates). Missing when-not-to-use or prerequisites. The scope 'at once' is implied but not explicit.

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