mcp-server-linear

update_issue

Modify an existing Linear issue by updating its title, description, or project assignment.

Instructions

Update an existing 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": {
      "issueId": "<issueId>"
    },
    "name": "update_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No	issue title
`issueId`	Yes	target issue id
`projectId`	No	target project id
`description`	No	issue description

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 exist, so the description must bear full burden. It mentions 'update' (mutation) but does not disclose behavior such as whether it performs partial updates, overwrites fields, or handles missing IDs.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence of 5 words, which is efficient. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 four parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain partial update behavior, required fields beyond issueId, or how it interacts with sibling update tools. More context is needed for effective 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?

Input schema descriptions cover all four parameters (100% coverage), but they are minimal (e.g., 'issue title', 'target issue id'). They add basic meaning but lack detail like formats or constraints beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'issue' within the 'Linear' system, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_issue or 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like update_issue_state or update_issue_priority. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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