connector_linear_searchSearch Linear issues and projects using natural language queries to find relevant work. Create or update issues as needed.
Search Linear. Search issues and projects. Create and update Linear issues.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of results to return | |
| query | Yes | Natural-language search query |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds that the tool can create and update issues, corroborating the mutation hint, but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or what 'destructive' operations are actually reachable, and it never reconciles a 'search' name with a destructive write tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three terse sentences with the resource named first, which is well front-loaded. However, the third sentence is both out of scope for a search tool and effectively duplicated by connector_linear_act, so it does not earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema and no annotation reconciliation, so the description must explain reachable operations, return shape, and routing. Instead it mixes search and write semantics in one paragraph, leaving the agent unable to determine what this call will actually do.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (natural-language query, limit) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states specific verbs and resources ('Search issues and projects', 'Create and update Linear issues'), but bundles mutating operations into a tool named '*_search', which overlaps directly with the sibling connector_linear_act. An agent cannot cleanly tell whether this tool searches or writes, so the purpose is muddled despite the concrete nouns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives are named, despite obvious siblings (connector_linear_act for writes, connector_linear_fetch for retrieval). The agent must infer routing entirely from the name, which the description then contradicts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.