linear_list_workflow_statesFetch workflow states for a team to see available statuses like backlog, unstarted, started, completed, and canceled, helping manage issue progress.
List workflow states (backlog, unstarted, started, completed, canceled) for a 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 safety profile, and the description adds value by listing the expected state values. However, it does not disclose behavior around pagination, filtering, or whether an omitted teamId changes results, so it only partially supplements the annotation.
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 efficient sentence with the action and key scope front-loaded. The parenthetical state list is useful without adding bloat, though additional parameter context would be welcome.
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 listing tool with no required parameters, the description is fairly adequate. Still, the missing parameter semantics and lack of any output-shape hints leave an agent needing to infer important details about how to invoke it correctly.
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 explain parameter meaning. It loosely connects teamId via 'for a team' but says nothing about limit and fails to clarify whether teamId is optional or required.
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 tool's action ('List') and resource ('workflow states') and usefully enumerates the kinds of states returned. It is distinct enough from sibling tools like linear_list_teams or linear_list_projects, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it explain whether teamId is required or what happens if it is omitted. The phrase 'for a team' implies a usage condition, but it is not made explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.