Linear MCP Server

linear_resolve_comment

Resolves a comment in Linear. Optionally attach a resolving comment for additional context.

Instructions

Resolves a comment

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "linear_resolve_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Comment ID to resolve
`resolvingCommentId`	No	Optional ID of a resolving comment

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 present, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Resolves a comment' without disclosing effects, reversibility, or side effects. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 very concise, using a single front-loaded sentence. It is efficient but could benefit from additional context without sacrificing brevity.

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 the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'resolve' entails or the role of the optional parameter.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Resolves a comment' clearly states the action and resource, using a specific verb. It distinguishes from sibling tools like linear_unresolve_comment through the name, though the description itself does not explicitly differentiate.

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 siblings like linear_update_comment or linear_delete_comment. The description lacks context for selecting the appropriate tool.

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