Linear

by cline

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

linear_auth

Start OAuth flow for Linear with your client ID, client secret, and redirect URI to authenticate.

Instructions

Initialize OAuth flow with Linear

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": {
      "clientId": "<clientId>",
      "clientSecret": "<clientSecret>",
      "redirectUri": "<redirectUri>"
    },
    "name": "linear_auth"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`clientId`	Yes	Linear OAuth client ID
`redirectUri`	Yes	OAuth redirect URI
`clientSecret`	Yes	Linear OAuth client secret

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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.