Linear MCP Server

linear_create_customer_need_from_attachment

Generate a customer need directly from an attachment to capture feedback or feature requests associated with a file.

Instructions

Creates a new customer need from an attachment

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": {
      "attachmentId": "<attachmentId>"
    },
    "name": "linear_create_customer_need_from_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`attachmentId`	Yes	ID of the attachment
`title`	No	Title for the customer need
`description`	No	Description for the customer need
`teamId`	No	Team ID for the customer need

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.6.0Jun 20, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action (creates) without disclosing side effects, required permissions, or what happens to the attachment. Critical behavioral details are missing for a creation tool.

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 concise sentence, but it is too short to provide adequate context for a tool with 4 parameters. It is minimally acceptable but could be expanded to include key details.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the purpose of creating a customer need, what the attachment is used for, and potential return values. It falls short of providing a complete picture.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema, which is acceptable but not extra helpful.

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 states the specific action (creates a new customer need) and source (from an attachment), which is clear and distinct from sibling tools like create_issue or create_comment. However, it lacks context about what a customer need is, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_issue or create_comment. There is no indication of prerequisites or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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