Retrieve recent updates for a Linear initiative by ID, with an optional limit. Use this to track progress and stay informed on initiative changes.
Get updates for an initiative
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of initiative updates to return (default: 25) | |
| initiativeId | Yes | ID of the initiative to inspect |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the tool is safe. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond stating it 'gets updates'.
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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words, but it could be slightly improved (e.g., specifying 'all updates' or a hint about pagination), so not a 5.
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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and the simple nature of the tool, the bare minimum is provided. However, missing guidance on usage and behavioral details makes it adequate but not thorough.
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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 'Get updates for an initiative' uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'updates for an initiative', distinguishing it from siblings like getInitiativeUpdateById (single update) and CRUD tools.
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 guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like getInitiativeUpdateById, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.