Linear MCP Server

linear_get_issue_comments

Retrieve comments for a Linear issue using its UUID or identifier. Supports pagination to navigate through multiple comments.

Instructions

Gets comments on a Linear issue by issue UUID or identifier

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": {
      "issueId": "<issueId>"
    },
    "name": "linear_get_issue_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`issueId`	Yes	Linear issue UUID or identifier, e.g. ENG-123
`first`	No	Number of comments to return (default: 25)
`after`	No	Cursor for pagination

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.6.0Jun 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it gets comments but does not describe whether results are paginated, sorted, or any side effects. For a read-only operation, more detail about response structure would improve transparency.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It is efficient and free of filler, though it could be slightly more informative without harming conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention return format, pagination behavior (though schema hints at it), or that it returns a list. A bit more context 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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 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 verb 'Gets', the resource 'comments on a Linear issue', and the required input 'issue UUID or identifier'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like linear_create_comment (create) and linear_delete_comment (delete).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when you need to retrieve comments for a specific issue, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives (e.g., linear_search_issues) or when not to use it. No mention of prerequisites or context.

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