Skip to main content
Glama
keegancsmith

Linear Issues MCP Server

by keegancsmith
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation2/5

    The two tools have overlapping purposes, as both fetch Linear issues, with the second tool adding comments. An agent could easily misselect between them when only basic issue details are needed, since the descriptions don't clearly differentiate when to use each beyond the comment inclusion. This creates ambiguity in tool selection for common workflows.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent naming pattern with the prefix 'linear_get_issue' and descriptive suffixes ('', '_with_comments'), using snake_case uniformly. The naming is predictable and clearly indicates the domain and action, making it easy for agents to understand the tool set's structure.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, this server feels severely under-scoped for managing Linear issues, a domain that typically requires CRUD operations like create, update, delete, search, and list. The limited tool count suggests incomplete coverage, making it difficult for agents to perform basic tasks beyond fetching issues.

    Completeness1/5

    The tool surface is severely incomplete for a Linear issues server, lacking essential operations such as creating, updating, deleting, listing, or searching issues. Agents will encounter dead ends when trying to perform common workflows, as the tools only support fetching issue details with or without comments, leaving major gaps in functionality.

  • Average 3.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a fetch operation (implying read-only) and mentions it returns comments and complete information, but doesn't address authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'complete information' specifically includes beyond comments. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably accesses external data.

    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, efficient sentence that immediately communicates the core functionality. Every word serves a purpose - 'Fetch' establishes the action, 'Linear issue' specifies the resource, and 'with all its comments and complete information' clarifies the scope. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration.

    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 a tool that fetches external data with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what authentication is needed, how errors are handled, what format the returned data takes, or what 'complete information' encompasses. The agent would be left guessing about important operational aspects of this data retrieval tool.

    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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'issue' well-documented in the schema as accepting URLs or identifiers. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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

    Purpose4/5

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

    The description clearly states the action ('Fetch') and resource ('Linear issue'), specifying it includes 'all its comments and complete information'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'linear_get_issue' which presumably lacks comments, though the distinction isn't explicitly stated in the description itself.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    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. The existence of sibling tool 'linear_get_issue' suggests there are multiple ways to retrieve issues, but the description doesn't explain when to choose this comprehensive version over the basic one or other potential options.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool fetches details, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't mention potential behaviors like error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.

    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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and input but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases or output format, which are important for an agent to use the tool correctly without annotations.

    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?

    The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'issue' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by reiterating the input requirement but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers, such as examples of valid identifiers or URL formats not in the schema.

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

    Purpose4/5

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

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('details of a single Linear issue'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'linear_get_issue_with_comments', which likely fetches issue details with additional comment data.

    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 implies usage by specifying the required input ('by providing its URL or identifier'), but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its sibling or other alternatives. No context about when-not-to-use or comparisons are included.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

linear-issues-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

linear-issues-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/keegancsmith/linear-issues-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server