linear-strict

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

comment

Destructive

Post typed entries to a Linear issue: evidence, correction, ask, answer, or closure. It applies validated description patches and links answers or closure relations.

Instructions

Post a typed comment. evidence: a finding, optionally with an Observed patch. correction: must carry the description patch that makes the description say the corrected thing. ask: adds an OPEN row to Open questions. answer: must name the row it closes (answers: "Q3") and flips it to ANSWERED with a link. closed_by: this ticket's work landed under another ticket; names it (closed_by), sets the Linear relation (relation "duplicate" or "fixed_there") and records it under Fix. Move the state separately with set_status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`base`	No	Required with patch. description_sha of the description this patch was written against: from get_issue, or from your last write to this ticket. The write is refused, with what changed, if the description has moved since.
`body`	Yes	Comment text. For ask, the first line becomes the question row.
`kind`	Yes
`issue`	Yes	Issue identifier (e.g. ENG-123) or UUID
`patch`	No	Description sections to change. Impact is the one plain-language line at the top saying who notices this work (mode replace). Observed lines must be "YYYY-MM-DD · <source: command, SHA or query> · <what it showed>". Done when lines must be checklist items ("- [ ] <check that proves it>"). Open questions changes only through comment kinds ask and answer.
`ask_to`	No	For kind ask: who should answer
`answers`	No	For kind answer: the question id, e.g. Q3
`relation`	No	For kind closed_by: duplicate (same problem) or fixed_there (a different ticket whose change fixed this one)
`closed_by`	No	For kind closed_by: the ticket that carried the work
`author_label`	No	Agent name for the comment header, e.g. the model. With a personal API key the header reads "<author_label> via <you>"; with an agent (app) token it defaults to the agent identity.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare a destructive, non-idempotent write, and the description adds rich behavioral detail beyond that: base is a stale-write guard that refuses with a diff, answer flips a row to ANSWERED with a link, closed_by sets a Linear relation and records under Fix. This is substantive disclosure for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads the core action and then organizes by kind labels, with no filler. The single dense paragraph is slightly hard to scan for 10 parameters, but every sentence carries necessary information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description need not explain returns. It covers kind semantics, patch requirements, base staleness handling, and cross-tool routing, which is complete for this tool's complexity.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 90%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description still adds conditional meaning, such as correction requiring the description patch and answer requiring the question id, but much of it overlaps with the schema's own per-field descriptions. A 4 reflects modest added value over a very complete schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Post a typed comment') and then enumerates the five comment kinds with their distinct purposes. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from set_status, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives per-kind usage conditions: evidence for findings, correction for description patches, ask/answer for the open-questions row, closed_by for work landed elsewhere. It names the alternative for state changes ('Move the state separately with set_status'), which is explicit when-not guidance.

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

Deploy Server