MCP Linear

linear_updateManagedOAuthApplication

Idempotent

Update an OAuth child app's metadata, grant types, redirect URIs, or webhook settings in Linear, without changing token scopes.

Instructions

Update metadata, grant capabilities, or webhook configuration for an alpha child app owned by the calling OAuth application. This does not grant or approve token scopes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`name`	No	OAuth client name. Must not contain "Linear" or an http(s) URL.
`imageUrl`	No
`developer`	No
`grantTypes`	No
`webhookUrl`	No
`description`	No
`developerUrl`	No
`redirectUris`	No
`webhookEnabled`	No
`webhookResourceTypes`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`name`	No
`clientId`	No
`imageUrl`	No
`createdAt`	No
`developer`	No
`updatedAt`	No
`grantTypes`	No
`webhookUrl`	No
`description`	No
`developerUrl`	No
`distribution`	No
`redirectUris`	No
`webhookEnabled`	No
`webhookResourceTypes`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.4.3Sep 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate idempotent and non-destructive mutation. The description adds that it updates metadata/grants/webhooks but does not approve scopes, providing useful behavioral context 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences that are efficient and front-loaded with key information. No redundant content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an 11-parameter tool with minimal schema descriptions, the description is too sparse. It omits parameter behavior details and does not leverage the existing output schema for completeness. The context provided is insufficient for accurate invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 9% (very low), and the general description does not detail any parameters. Parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no additional meaning, failing to compensate for the low coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool updates metadata, grant capabilities, or webhook configuration for a child app. It explicitly excludes granting token scopes, distinguishing it from related tools like create or rotate.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It specifies the target (alpha child app owned by caller) and clarifies what it does not do (grant scopes). However, it lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance beyond the scope exclusion.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server