Linear MCP Server

linear_search_issues

Search for issues in Linear using filters such as query, team, assignee, state, or priority. Supports pagination and ordering.

Instructions

Search for issues with filtering and pagination

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "linear_search_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	No	Search query string
`teamIds`	No	Filter by team IDs
`assigneeIds`	No	Filter by assignee IDs
`states`	No	Filter by state names
`priority`	No	Filter by priority (0-4)
`first`	No	Number of issues to return (default: 50)
`after`	No	Cursor for pagination
`orderBy`	No	Field to order by (default: updatedAt)

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 carries the full burden. It only states the basic function, omitting any details about return format, search semantics (e.g., which fields are searched), authentication requirements, or rate limits. This leaves the agent without critical behavioral context.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, with no wasted content.

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 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks important context such as search behavior (e.g., whether query searches title/body), default response structure, or pagination mechanics. The brief description is insufficient for an agent to set expectations correctly, given the tool's complexity.

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?

All 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain them. The phrase 'filtering and pagination' adds no new information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.

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 'Search' and the resource 'issues', distinguishing it from sibling tools like linear_search_projects and linear_search_project_milestones. It also mentions key features, filtering and pagination, which accurately reflect the tool's function.

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 for searching issues but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It is clear enough for basic distinction but lacks direct comparison or context.

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