Linear MCP Server

linear_create_comment

Adds a comment to a specified Linear issue using its ID and text content.

Instructions

Creates a new comment on an issue

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": {
      "body": "<body>",
      "issueId": "<issueId>"
    },
    "name": "linear_create_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes	Comment text content
`issueId`	Yes	ID of the issue to comment on

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.6.0Jun 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'creates a new comment', implying mutation, but does not disclose permissions, limits, or side effects.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence, concise but not adding value beyond the name. It could incorporate more context without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple create tool without output schema and no annotations, the description is minimal but covers the basic action. However, sibling tools exist, so more context on behavior or response would improve 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% for both parameters, providing baseline clarity. The description adds no extra parameter context beyond what the schema already provides.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states it creates a comment on an issue (verb+resource), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like linear_update_comment or linear_resolve_comment.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., linear_update_comment or linear_delete_comment). The description is a simple statement with no context for usage.

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