MCP Linear

linear_updateSavedView

Idempotent

Update an existing Linear saved view by modifying its name, filters, icon, color, sharing, team, project, or owner. Provide the view ID and at least one field to change.

Instructions

Update a Linear saved view (API: updateCustomView). Provide id plus at least one other field to change.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	ID of the saved view to update
`icon`	No	Updated icon for the saved view. Pass null to clear it.
`name`	No	Updated saved view name
`color`	No	Updated icon color for the saved view. Pass null to clear it.
`shared`	No	Whether the saved view is shared across the organization
`teamId`	No	Updated team associated with the saved view. Pass null to clear it.
`filters`	No	Updated raw filters object to store on the saved view. Pass null to clear it.
`ownerId`	No	Updated owner for the saved view. Pass null to clear it.
`projectId`	No	Updated project associated with the saved view. Pass null to clear it.
`filterData`	No	Updated issue filter data for the saved view. Pass null to clear it.
`description`	No	Updated saved view description. Pass null to clear it.
`projectFilterData`	No	Updated project filter data for the saved view. Pass null to clear it.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`icon`	No
`name`	No
`team`	No
`color`	No
`owner`	No
`shared`	No
`slugId`	No
`creator`	No
`filters`	No
`createdAt`	No
`updatedAt`	No
`filterData`	No
`description`	No
`projectFilterData`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.4.3Sep 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the field-change requirement but does not disclose additional behavior such as side effects, authentication needs, or edge cases (e.g., what happens with only id). It adds some value but not substantial behavioral context beyond annotations, and no contradiction exists.

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?

The description is a single, focused sentence with no redundancy. It states the purpose and the key usage requirement upfront, making it efficient and easy to parse. There is no wasted content.

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

Completeness4/5

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 and straightforward update semantics, the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It does not elaborate on complex behaviors like permission checks or null handling, but these are covered in the schema. The description adequately completes the picture for typical use.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameter descriptions are already present. The description only adds the global requirement of providing at least one other field, which is a usage constraint rather than parameter-specific meaning. Per the baseline rule for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update a Linear saved view' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating a mutation operation. It also references the underlying API name (updateCustomView), and the operation is unambiguous compared to sibling tools like createSavedView, deleteSavedView, and getSavedViews.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides a practical usage constraint: 'Provide id plus at least one other field to change.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. The appropriate context is implied by the tool name, but there is no explicit routing to sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server