Duplicates an existing Linear issue by its ID or identifier, creating a copy for reuse.
Duplicate an issue
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issueId | Yes | ID or identifier of the issue to duplicate (e.g., ABC-123) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| success | No | ||
| originalIssue | No | ||
| duplicatedIssue | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate the operation is non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description does not contradict them. But the description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'Duplicate' — it does not say whether a new issue is created immediately, what gets copied, or what side effects occur. For a mutating tool, this is a clear gap.
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 one short sentence with no redundant material, and the core action is front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimized clarity.
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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description provides a minimum viable understanding, and return values are not needed because an output schema exists. However, it omits side-effect or result semantics — such as that a new issue is created and which properties are copied — so the agent must infer behavior from the tool name.
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 100%, and the issueId parameter is already documented as 'ID or identifier of the issue to duplicate (e.g., ABC-123)'. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but with full schema coverage the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Duplicate') and resource ('an issue'), clearly identifying the operation. It avoids the tautology problem of merely restating the tool name. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling issue-related tools like createIssue, updateIssue, or archiveIssue.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use duplicateIssue versus createIssue, updateIssue, transferIssue, or archiveIssue. It also does not state prerequisites or scenarios where duplication is the appropriate choice. This is essentially no usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.