Subscribe to a Linear issue to receive notifications on its updates. Provide the issue ID or identifier to start following changes.
Subscribe to issue updates
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issueId | Yes | ID or identifier of the issue to subscribe to (e.g., ABC-123) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | 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 indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). The description adds no extra context about side effects (e.g., notification behavior) or how to unsubscribe. Minimal disclosure 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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. It is appropriately short for a simple tool, though no structural elements are used.
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 (one parameter, no nested objects, output schema present), the description is adequate but lacks context on what subscribing entails in practice (e.g., notification behavior). It meets minimum completeness.
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 one parameter (issueId). The description adds an example format (e.g., ABC-123), which helps but is not significant. 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 'Subscribe to issue updates' clearly states the verb (subscribe) and resource (issue updates). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like createIssue or updateIssue. However, it does not specify what type of updates (e.g., notifications) are involved.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getIssueById or setIssuePriority. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.