mcp-server-linear

update_issue_estimate

Update the estimate of a Linear issue to adjust its scope or prioritization.

Instructions

Update the estimate of 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_estimate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issueId`	Yes	target issue id
`estimate`	No	issue estimate

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.15Jun 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action (update) without noting side effects, permissions, idempotency, or constraints (e.g., valid estimate range).

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 with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and maximally concise.

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?

For a simple mutation with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal completeness. It states the purpose but lacks return value info, constraints, or confirmation of changes. Compare to calibration examples: it is adequate but not rich.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions (issueId as target, estimate as issue estimate).

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 'estimate of an existing issue', making it distinct from sibling tools like update_issue_priority or update_issue_state. It also specifies the system (Linear).

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 such as update_issue, which could also modify the estimate. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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