mcp-server-linear

update_issue_priority

Update an issue's priority to low, medium, or high in Linear.

Instructions

Update the priority 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_priority"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.15Jun 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the action (update) but does not disclose whether the operation is idempotent, what side effects occur, or what the return value is. The enum values are in the schema, not the description. Minimal but acceptable for a simple field update.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could benefit from slightly more structure (e.g., listing parameters).

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 simplicity (updating one field) and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks context on return behavior or confirmation. It does not mention that the priority uses an enum or that the update is immediate.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and clearly identifies the resource ('priority of an existing issue') and system ('Linear'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'update_issue' and 'update_issue_state' by focusing solely on priority.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_issue' (which could also modify priority alongside other fields). It does not mention prerequisites, error conditions, or when not to use.

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