Retrieve the custom field values currently set on a specific Linear issue by providing its ID or identifier.
Get the custom field values that are currently set on a specific issue
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issueId | Yes | ID or identifier of the issue (e.g., ABC-123) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issueId | No | ||
| identifier | No | ||
| customFields | 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the phrase 'currently set', implying it returns the current state rather than historical changes, which is minor additional context. No other behavioral traits (error handling, performance) are disclosed.
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 zero redundancy. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and every word is necessary. This is an exemplary model of brevity.
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?
The tool has an output schema (has output schema true), so return values are already defined structurally. The description sufficiently conveys the purpose and required input. However, given the large number of sibling tools, a hint about why one might choose this over linear_getCustomFields would enhance completeness, but it's not strictly necessary for a simple read operation.
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?
The input schema fully describes the only parameter (issueId with example ABC-123) at 100% coverage. The description does not add any further meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Since schema coverage is high, 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 'Get the custom field values that are currently set on a specific issue' clearly states a specific verb (Get), resource (custom field values), and scope (specific issue). It distinguishes from siblings like linear_getCustomFields (likely the field definitions) and linear_getIssueById (the issue object itself) by explicitly indicating it retrieves values for a particular issue.
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention alternatives like linear_getCustomFields or linear_updateIssueCustomField, nor does it state conditions for selection. The agent must infer from the description alone, which is somewhat implied but not directly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.