linear_list_my_issuesList all Linear issues assigned to your user account. Filter by team, limit results, and include archived items to track your workload.
List issues assigned to the API key's own Linear user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| teamId | No | ||
| includeArchived | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already known. The description adds useful scoping behavior, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or how teamId and includeArchived affect results.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and no filler. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only list tool, the core behavior and scope are covered. However, with no output schema and no parameter explanations, an agent must infer return shape and filtering semantics, leaving clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (limit, teamId, includeArchived). It adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare property names and defaults.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('issues'), and precisely scopes the result to 'assigned to the API key's own Linear user.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like linear_list_issues and linear_search_issues.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. The only usage context is implied by the phrase 'own Linear user'; an agent cannot tell from the description when to choose this over linear_list_issues or linear_search_issues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.