Linear MCP Server

linear_unresolve_comment

Mark a resolved comment as unresolved to reopen the discussion. Requires the comment ID.

Instructions

Unresolves 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_unresolve_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Comment ID to unresolve

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, idempotency, or required permissions. The behavioral impact (unresolving a comment) is implied but not elaborated.

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, consisting of a single sentence that immediately conveys the purpose. However, it may be overly brief, lacking additional context that could improve usability.

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?

For a simple mutation tool with no output schema and one parameter, the description is minimal. It does not explain the relationship to resolving comments or the expected outcome, leaving gaps in 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description for the 'id' parameter. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 'Unresolves a comment' clearly states the verb and resource, making the tool's purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like linear_resolve_comment, though the name itself provides that distinction.

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 alternatives (e.g., linear_resolve_comment or linear_delete_comment). The description lacks any context about prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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