mcp-server-linear

create_issue

Add a new issue to a Linear team by providing a title and team ID. Optionally include description, project, parent, dependencies, labels, estimate, and priority.

Instructions

Create a new issue in Linear

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "teamId": "<teamId>"
    },
    "name": "create_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	issue title
`labels`	No	issue labels
`teamId`	Yes	target team id
`estimate`	No	issue estimate
`parentId`	No	parent issue id
`priority`	No	issue priority
`projectId`	No	target project id
`description`	No	issue description
`dependencyIds`	No	dependency issue ids

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.15Jun 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description only says 'Create a new issue'. No disclosure of side effects, permissions, error cases, or what the response contains.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence. Front-loaded with key information. Could add more structure but no unnecessary words.

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?

Given high complexity (9 parameters, many optional), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. Missing return value, validation rules, and usage context.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description adds no extra parameter information beyond the schema, so baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'Create' and resource 'new issue in Linear'. It distinguishes from siblings like update_issue and delete_issue.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 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.