Archive a Linear release by its ID to remove it from active use while preserving its data. Provide the release ID to move the release to an archived state.
Archive a release
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| releaseId | Yes | The ID of the release to archive |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| release | No | ||
| success | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true and idempotentHint: true, covering key behavioral traits. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., whether archiving is reversible or its side effects). While there is no contradiction, the description adds minimal value beyond annotations.
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 three words long and immediately communicates the action and target. Every word is essential, and there is no extraneous information. This is a model of conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, annotations, and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it could be improved by noting that archiving is likely reversible (sibling unarchiveRelease exists) or clarifying any effects on associated items. The agent may need to infer such details.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains the single parameter releaseId as 'The ID of the release to archive'. The description does not add any further semantic meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'Archive a release' clearly states the verb ('archive') and the resource ('release'). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like linear_archiveRoadmap, linear_archiveMilestone, etc., which target different entities.
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?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., unarchiveRelease, deleteRelease) or any prerequisites. This lack of guidance may confuse an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.