Linear

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are clearly distinct by resource and action (e.g., issues vs. projects vs. milestones). The few potentially confusable pairs are singular/plural variants like create_issue/create_issues and delete_issue/delete_issues, but the plural forms clearly indicate bulk operations.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use a consistent linear_ prefix followed by snake_case verb_noun patterns (e.g., create_issue, search_projects, get_project_milestones). The singular/plural distinction is applied uniformly, and there are no mixed conventions or vague verbs.
Tool Count3/5
At 22 tools, the count falls into the borderline-heavy range (16-25). However, the coverage spans multiple subdomains (issues, projects, milestones, comments, auth, teams, user), so the count is defensible but feels slightly high for an MCP server.
Completeness3/5
Issues have create, update (bulk), delete, and search, but no single-issue get; projects support create/get/search but not update or delete; comments only support get and create. These are notable gaps in lifecycle coverage for the core resources.
Average 3.1/5 across 22 of 22 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 2 of 3 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It merely states 'Handle OAuth callback' with no explanation of side effects, required state, return value, or potential errors. This adds no value beyond the tool name itself.
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 one short sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, its brevity comes at the cost of adequate detail, so it doesn't earn a 5.
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?
This is a callback handler for OAuth, which typically involves token exchange and state verification. With no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully understand the tool's behavior. It omits critical context such as what happens after exchanging the code and whether there are side effects.
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?
The schema already describes the single parameter 'code' as 'OAuth authorization code', giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, but since the schema is complete, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says 'Handle OAuth callback' which identifies the resource as an OAuth callback but uses the vague verb 'handle'. It distinguishes from the sibling linear_auth (presumably the initiator), but doesn't specify what handling entails, such as exchanging the code for tokens or completing the authentication flow.
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 or how it relates to alternatives. The agent is not told that this should be called after linear_auth or when receiving an OAuth redirect. The usage context is entirely implied by the tool name and OAuth conventions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Get project information' without disclosing return format, permissions, error cases, or side effects. This is essentially missing behavioral information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, but it essentially restates the tool name 'linear_get_project' and provides minimal information. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.
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?
With no output schema, the description should explain what 'project information' includes, but it doesn't. It also lacks any comparison to sibling tools, making it incomplete for agent decision-making.
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?
The schema covers 100% of the single 'id' parameter with 'Project identifier'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool gets project information using the verb 'Get' and resource 'project information'. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like linear_search_projects, so it's clear but lacks differentiation.
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 such as linear_search_projects or linear_get_project_milestone. There is no context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'update', implying mutation, but gives no information about auth requirements, atomicity, partial failure behavior, or reversibility. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise, though the extreme brevity leaves room for more structure. However, conciseness as a standalone dimension is well-served.
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?
The tool has moderate complexity (nested update object, array of IDs) and no annotations or output schema. The description is too sparse to be contextually complete; it does not explain return values, error behavior, batch limits, or relationship to sibling tools. An agent would need to rely heavily on the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (issueIds has description, update does not, though nested fields have descriptions). The description adds no parameter semantics; it does not mention which fields can be updated or how issueIds/update relate. Given medium coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'update' and resource 'multiple issues', distinguishing it from create/delete/search siblings. The 'at once' phrasing signals bulk behavior, but it does not enumerate what can be updated, which could be more specific.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or situations where another tool (e.g., single update, create) would be more appropriate. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states the action. It fails to mention authentication requirements, potential side effects, return values, or any constraints. This is a significant gap for a write operation.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded and adequately concise for a simple CRUD tool, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.
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?
Given the tool has 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns, how it behaves beyond the obvious, or any important context like required teamId. The schema covers parameters, but the overall context is incomplete.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to add meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the heavy lifting, and the description contributes nothing extra.
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 clearly states the tool's action ('Create a new issue') and resource ('Linear'), making it distinct from other tools like comments. However, it does not differentiate from the plural 'linear_create_issues' nor mention any scope, so it stops short of a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as linear_create_issues (bulk creation) or linear_create_project_with_issues. There is no mention of prerequisites or context, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'create' without mentioning side effects, permissions, idempotency, or return behavior, leaving the agent underinformed about the operation's implications.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence (7 words) with no redundant information. It efficiently conveys the tool's primary function without filler.
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?
Despite full parameter schema coverage, the description lacks crucial context for a mutation tool: no output schema exists, and the description does not mention return values, prerequisites, or any side effects. For an agent selecting and invoking the tool, this is insufficiently complete.
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 description coverage is 100%, with all parameters described in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the tool's purpose, aligning with the baseline for full schema coverage.
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 'Create a new project milestone in Linear' clearly states the verb and resource, indicating a create operation. It implicitly distinguishes from the plural sibling tool, but does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bulk creation (linear_create_project_milestones) or updates. The description implies singular creation but offers no exclusions or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but 'Delete an issue' merely restates the tool's name without adding details about irreversibility, permissions, side effects, or error behavior. It provides no value beyond the name itself.
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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words or repetition of the schema. However, it is extremely terse and borders on under-specification, so it doesn't earn a 5.
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?
The tool is simple, but the description lacks essential context for a destructive operation: no mention of permanence, required permissions, or impact on related data. The absence of annotations and output schema is not compensated.
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?
The schema already describes the only parameter 'id' with an example (ENG-123), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter context, matching the baseline.
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 'Delete an issue' clearly states the action and resource. It conveys singular scope, distinguishing it from the sibling 'linear_delete_issues' by implication, though it doesn't explicitly reference the alternative.
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 the plural 'linear_delete_issues' or other delete tools. There is no mention of use cases, constraints, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior, but it only says 'Initialize OAuth flow' without mentioning side effects (e.g., network calls, credential storage), return values (e.g., authorization URL), security implications, or how it relates to the callback step. This is dangerously opaque for an OAuth tool handling secrets.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It efficiently conveys the core action, though the lack of detail is appropriately penalized in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an OAuth initialization tool with three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the OAuth flow, what the function returns, or important security affordances like how the clientSecret is handled. An agent cannot safely invoke this tool based on this description alone.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% descriptive coverage for all three parameters (clientId, clientSecret, redirectUri) with clear names. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 a specific action ('Initialize OAuth flow') and the resource ('Linear'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'linear_auth_callback', which handles the subsequent OAuth step.
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. The description does not mention that this is the initial step in an OAuth handshake, nor does it reference the callback tool or any preconditions such as obtaining client credentials.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete multiple issues' indicates a destructive action but provides no information about irreversibility, required permissions, effects on related data, or partial failure behavior. This is a minimal transparency for a deletion tool.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is completely focused on the tool's action. There is no wasted text or redundant information, making it highly efficient.
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?
Given that this is a deletion operation with no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not mention potential side effects, outcome, or conditions for use. The simple schema and single parameter are well-covered, but the lack of behavioral and usage context leaves the description incomplete for an agent to safely invoke the tool.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage, describing 'ids' as 'List of issue identifiers to delete'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter effectively.
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 'Delete multiple issues' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (issues), with the modifier 'multiple' distinguishing it from the sibling tool linear_delete_issue. It is specific enough to understand the tool's basic purpose, but does not elaborate on details like whether it's a permanent deletion or archiving.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The plural 'multiple' implies batch deletion, but the description does not explicitly mention its suitability for bulk operations or exclude other tools. No context, prerequisites, or trade-offs are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior, but it merely restates the function's name ('Get information about a specific project milestone'). It does not mention read-only nature, potential errors, authentication, or return format, providing no additional behavioral context beyond the name.
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 a single, to-the-point sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and front-loaded, though it provides minimal additional information beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-ID tool with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema or annotations, it does not explain what is returned or clarify differences from sibling tools, leaving some gaps in context.
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% for the single 'id' parameter, which is already described in the schema. The description adds no further meaning or context about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the action (get) and resource (project milestone), and the word 'specific' implies retrieving a single item by ID, which distinguishes it from list/search siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'get_project_milestones' or name alternatives.
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 given on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like linear_search_project_milestones or linear_get_project_milestones. There is no mention of prerequesites or contexts that would help select this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves milestones, but does not disclose pagination behavior, default limits, error conditions, or read-only nature beyond the verb itself.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is concise and direct, though it may be too short to convey necessary context.
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?
Despite having no annotations and no output schema, the description fails to mention pagination options, default ordering, or the nature of the response. It is adequate for a minimal understanding but incomplete for an agent needing to correctly invoke the tool with pagination.
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?
All parameters are fully described in the input schema with descriptions for each field, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics; it does not even mention required projectId.
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 clearly identifies the operation ('Get'), the resource ('all milestones'), and the scope ('for a specific project'), making the tool's purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_project_milestone or search_project_milestones, though the 'all' implies the 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?
The description provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as search_project_milestones or get_project_milestone. No usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It essentially restates the tool's function without revealing any additional behavior such as return format, pagination, or case sensitivity. The schema notes 'exact match' but the description itself adds no such context.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that is concise and free of filler. It efficiently states the tool's purpose, though it could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.
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 search tool with no output schema, the description should clarify what results are returned and any relevant limitations. It only states 'Search for projects by name' without explaining return behavior or usage context, leaving the agent underinformed.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage for the 'name' parameter, including a description that it is an exact match. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond that, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('projects') with a clear scope ('by name'). It effectively conveys the core action, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like linear_get_project.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as linear_get_project or linear_search_issues. There is no mention of preferred use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It discloses the teamIds array requirement, but this is a parameter format note rather than a behavioral trait. The description does not mention side effects, failure modes, atomicity, or permission requirements, which are critical for a mutating tool.
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?
The description is one sentence plus a brief note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the complexity of nested objects and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, error behavior, or the relationship between the project and its issues. The teamIds note is helpful but insufficient for a tool that creates two types of resources in one operation.
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?
The schema description coverage is 50% (only the 'issues' parameter has a direct description). The description adds value by emphasizing that 'project requires teamIds (array) not teamId (single value),' which helps avoid a common mistake. However, it does not explain the relationship between project.teamIds and issues[].teamId, and the schema already documents teamIds as an array.
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 the tool's function: 'Create a new project with associated issues.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the combination of project + issues distinguishes it from sibling tools like linear_create_issue or linear_create_project_milestone. The added note about teamIds further clarifies the scope.
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. The description does not mention that this should be used when needing to create a project and issues together in one call, nor does it reference sibling tools. The teamIds note is a parameter detail, not a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that deletion is irreversible, whether special permissions are required, or any cascading effects, leaving the agent without important context for a destructive operation.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and is appropriately sized for a tool with one parameter.
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?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description omits essential context for a destructive operation. With no annotations or output schema, it fails to mention return values, side effects, or prerequisites, making it incomplete for confident tool invocation.
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?
The input schema fully describes the only parameter 'id' as 'The ID of the project milestone to delete', giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Delete a project milestone' clearly states the action (delete) and the target resource (project milestone), making it highly specific. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like linear_update_project_milestone or linear_delete_issue.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states the action without mentioning related operations like get, update, or search milestones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Search' implies a read-only operation, and 'filtering and pagination' describes query behavior, but it doesn't explicitly state side effects, authentication needs, or return format. It adds some value but remains thin.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and key capabilities. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimally adequate for a search tool with well-schema'd parameters, but it lacks context about when to choose this over the 'get' milestone variants, and doesn't mention response structure or pagination semantics beyond what the schema states. With no annotations or output schema, more context would be expected.
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%, so each parameter is already described. The description's mention of 'filtering and pagination' adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool performs a search on project milestones, with filtering and pagination capabilities. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_project_milestones by implying a query-based search, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other milestone-related tools (e.g., get_project_milestones) or search tools like search_issues. The filtering and pagination hints are useful but not sufficient to guide tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'update an existing project milestone' without explaining whether fields are partially updated, whether permissions are required, or what the response contains. The behavior of omitted fields is unspecified, which is a significant gap for a mutation operation.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema is rich and covers all parameters, but the description lacks essential behavioral context such as partial update semantics, required permissions, and return values. For a simple update tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is a minimal but viable description, though it leaves gaps in what the agent can expect.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 6 parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'update' with a clear resource 'existing project milestone', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, delete, or get. The word 'existing' clarifies that it is a modification operation, not creation.
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 given for when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as creating a new milestone or deleting one. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation and the resource is 'current user,' but no details are given about return format, authentication requirements, or possible failure modes.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence with no wasted words. It immediately conveys the tool's purpose.
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?
The tool is simple, but without an output schema or annotations, the description is too vague. Saying 'current user information' does not specify what fields or structure the response contains, leaving a significant gap for an agent trying to use the result correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (irrelevant since no params exist). Per guidelines, a description baseline of 4 applies when no parameter meaning is needed.
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 'Get current user information' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (current user information). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that operate on issues, projects, teams, and milestones.
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, such as other user-related tools or authentication tools. The context of use is implied but never explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic function, omitting any details about return format, search semantics (e.g., which fields are searched), authentication requirements, or rate limits. This leaves the agent without critical behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. Every word earns its place, with no wasted content.
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?
With 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description lacks important context such as search behavior (e.g., whether query searches title/body), default response structure, or pagination mechanics. The brief description is insufficient for an agent to set expectations correctly, given the tool's complexity.
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?
All 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain them. The phrase 'filtering and pagination' adds no new information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but not exceeding it.
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 the verb 'Search' and the resource 'issues', distinguishing it from sibling tools like linear_search_projects and linear_search_project_milestones. It also mentions key features, filtering and pagination, which accurately reflect the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for searching issues but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. It is clear enough for basic distinction but lacks direct comparison or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations to provide safety hints, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool creates issues, but does not mention whether the operation is atomic, how partial failures are handled, permission requirements, rate limits, or what is returned. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to provide context beyond the core action. It earns a high score for conciseness but loses a point for being slightly under-informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool complexity and complete schema, the description is minimally viable. It does not explain return values or error/partial-failure behavior, which is a gap since there is no output schema. However, for a straightforward bulk-create operation, this is an acceptable baseline.
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?
The schema provides 100% coverage of the 'issues' parameter and its nested properties, each with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 'Create multiple issues at once' clearly states the verb (create), resource (issues), and specifies the batch functionality ('multiple'), effectively distinguishing it from the sibling tool linear_create_issue. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose statement.
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?
The phrase 'multiple issues at once' conveys that this tool is for bulk creation, implying a contrast with single-issue creation. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or provide exclusion criteria, though the sibling tool name makes the distinction evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action without mentioning prerequisites, side effects, authentication needs, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes to the meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create operation with a comprehensive schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It lacks details about return values, authentication requirements (especially for OAuth-specific fields), and any confirmation behavior. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, this could leave an agent uncertain about the post-conditions.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the mention of 'reply' is already captured by the schema's 'parentCommentId' description.
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 the tool's function: 'Create a new comment on an issue or reply to an existing comment.' This specifies a verb (create) and a resource (comments on issues), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like linear_create_issue or linear_get_issue_comments.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool—when you need to add a comment or reply. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the action is straightforward and distinct from sibling tools like linear_create_issue 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only repeats the obvious creation intent and gives no information about atomicity, partial failures, permissions, rate limits, or what happens if one milestone fails. This is a significant gap for a batch mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words, earning a top score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple batch create operation with complete parameter documentation. However, there is no output schema and the description does not mention what the tool returns or any batch-specific limitations. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but leaves gaps around expected results.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both projectId and milestones, including nested properties. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (create), the resource (project milestones), and the scope (multiple at once). This distinguishes it from the singular 'linear_create_project_milestone' sibling tool by explicitly indicating batch creation.
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?
The phrase 'multiple project milestones at once' implies the tool is intended for batch creation, providing context for when to use it over the singular sibling. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the useful detail that threaded replies are included, but it does not mention pagination behavior (after/first), the default exclusion of archived comments, or any other side effects. This is a read operation, so the risk is low, but the description could be more explicit about these traits.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that states the core functionality and a key behavioral detail (threaded replies) without any fluff or redundant information. It is well front-loaded with the action and resource.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity and a schema that covers all parameters with descriptions, the overall description is adequate. It lacks an output schema but the purpose is clear. However, it does not mention the default number of comments or how pagination works, which would be helpful for a complete understanding, but the schema provides these details, so the missing context is minor.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all parameters (issueId, after, first, includeArchived). The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what is already in the schema, such as highlighting that issueId is the primary filter or explaining the pagination cursor details.
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 the tool retrieves comments for a specific issue, with the added detail that it includes threaded replies. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_comment (write) and search_issues (search). The verb 'Get' and resource 'comments' are specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by its name and phrasing, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., searching for comments via search_issues or creating a comment with create_comment). No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so the guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, which is helpful, but it does not mention pagination, authentication requirements, or the exact return structure beyond implying 'states and labels'. The description is minimally transparent but lacks deeper behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is direct and free of unnecessary words. It clearly states the action, resource, and relevant included data in an efficient manner. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple no-parameter retrieval tool, the description is largely complete: it identifies the tool's output (teams with states and labels). However, there is no output schema and no annotation, so it does not disclose whether the response is paginated or if there are volume limits. Given the simplicity, this is a minor gap, so a 4 is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
This tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage by definition). Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline for parameter semantics is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the absence is not a deficiency.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'all teams', clearly indicating a retrieval operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the resource (teams) and including additional detail ('with their states and labels'), which is not mentioned in other tool names.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name. No context about scenarios where this tool is preferred is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![linear-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cline/linear-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cline/linear-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![linear-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cline/linear-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/cline/linear-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/cline/linear-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server