linear_list_projectsRetrieve a list of projects from Linear, optionally filtered by team ID, to review project details and track progress.
List projects, optionally scoped to one team.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| teamId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only safety profile, and the description adds the optional team-scoping behavior. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default limit, or what the response contains, though annotations lower the burden.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the core operation and the key optional parameter in a compact form, earning each word.
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 with no required parameters, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention that teamId references a Linear team ID or that results return project objects, but the low complexity and readOnlyHint reduce the need for extensive context.
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%, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely references team scoping. It does not explain the 'limit' parameter, its default of 50, or the maximum of 100, leaving one parameter semantically undocumented.
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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('projects'), with an optional team scope. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling list tools that operate on different resources such as teams, users, cycles, and 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 does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage hint is 'optionally scoped to one team,' which is more of a parameter-level note than guidance about tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.