Linear MCP Server

linear_search_issues_by_identifier

Search for issues using their identifiers like ENG-78 or ENG-79 to quickly locate specific issues.

Instructions

Search for issues by their identifiers (e.g., ["ENG-78", "ENG-79"])

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": {
      "identifiers": "<identifiers>"
    },
    "name": "linear_search_issues_by_identifier"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`identifiers`	Yes	Array of issue identifiers to search for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.6.0Jun 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 correctly indicates a search operation (read-only), but does not disclose traits like maximum number of identifiers, reaction to missing identifiers, or whether results are complete or truncated.

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 extremely concise: one line with an example. Every word is necessary; no fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It communicates the core function and input format. However, a note on return values (e.g., that it returns full issue objects) would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the 'identifiers' parameter. The description adds value by showing an example format (['ENG-78', 'ENG-79']), clarifying the expected string pattern and array style.

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 states 'Search for issues by their identifiers' which is a clear and specific verb-resource combination. The example format further clarifies the expected input. Additionally, the presence of sibling 'linear_search_issues' implies a distinction, and this tool's focus on identifiers makes it distinct.

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?

The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'linear_search_issues'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned. Given the sibling tool exists for broader searches, explicit context would be helpful.

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