Linear MCP Server

linear_create_issue

Create a new issue in Linear by specifying title, description, and team ID. Optionally set priority, assignee, labels, or parent issue.

Instructions

Create a new issue in Linear

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "description": "<description>",
      "teamId": "<teamId>"
    },
    "name": "linear_create_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	Issue title
`description`	Yes	Issue description
`teamId`	Yes	Team ID (UUID)
`parentId`	No	Parent issue ID (UUID, not issue identifier)
`labelIds`	No	Label UUIDs to apply, eg ['a1eb5aed-7425-4ea5-98ec-dfab52381e0e']
`assigneeId`	No	Assignee user ID (UUID)
`priority`	No	Issue priority (0-4)
`createAsUser`	No	Name to display for the created issue
`displayIconUrl`	No	URL of the avatar to display

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.6.0Jun 20, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description provides no behavioral details such as side effects, required permissions, or response behavior. Only states creation without any disclosure of what happens after.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It does not front-load key information or provide any additional detail.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to cover behavior, return values, or usage nuances, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning or context beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 'Create a new issue in Linear' clearly states the verb (create) and resource (issue), and distinguishes from siblings like linear_edit_issue and linear_create_issues.

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. Does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios for choosing this over linear_create_issues or linear_edit_issue.

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