Linear

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

linear_bulk_update_issues

Update multiple Linear issues in one request, applying changes to state, priority, assignee, or estimate for a list of issue IDs.

Instructions

Update multiple issues at once

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": {
      "issueIds": "<issueIds>",
      "update": "<update>"
    },
    "name": "linear_bulk_update_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`update`	Yes
`issueIds`	Yes	List of issue IDs to update

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

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.