patchwork-os

updateLinearIssue

Update an existing Linear issue by specifying only the fields to change. Modify title, description, priority, state, assignee, or labels.

Instructions

Update an existing Linear issue. Pass only the fields you want to change. Requires Linear connector connected.

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": "updateLinearIssue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Issue identifier (e.g. 'ENG-42') or URL.
`state`	No	Workflow state name (e.g. 'In Progress', 'Done').
`title`	No
`assignee`	No	Assignee name or email.
`priority`	No	0=no priority, 1=urgent, 2=high, 3=medium, 4=low.
`labelNames`	No	Label names to set (replaces existing labels).
`description`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 20, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, consistent with update. Description adds partial update hint but doesn't disclose error handling, idempotency, or side effects beyond the stated behavior.

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?

Two efficient sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidance, then prerequisite.

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?

Covers core purpose and partial update pattern adequately. Lacks mention of return value or error handling, but for a simple mutation tool this is sufficient. Could be enhanced with a note about response.

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 71%, so many parameters are described in schema. The description reinforces partial update but adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what schema already provides.

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 'Update an existing Linear issue' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like createLinearIssue by implying the issue already exists.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides clear context: 'Pass only the fields you want to change' indicates partial update. Requires connector. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use (e.g., for new issues use createLinearIssue).

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

Deploy Server