Link an issue to an external URL, creating or updating its attachment by URL so duplicates are avoided.
Link an issue to something outside Linear. Linear deduplicates by URL: creating an attachment whose URL is already on the issue updates that one rather than adding a second.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variables | Yes | The attachment to create. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: URL-based deduplication means a repeat URL updates the existing attachment instead of creating a duplicate. It omits auth/permission requirements, but the dedup disclosure is real value.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero padding, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the dedup caveat. Every sentence earns 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?
For a single-parameter mutation with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. It does not mention the return value or side effects like the optional comment creation, but with no output schema that is a minor gap.
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 issueId, url, title and the optional fields are already documented in the schema. The description only implicitly touches the url parameter via dedup behavior, adding nothing beyond the schema baseline.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Link an issue to something outside Linear'), which is clear and actionable. It does not explicitly name the closest sibling (linear_attachments_for_url) or otherwise differentiate from it, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
The description says what the tool does but gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternative. The dedup sentence is behavioral, not a usage routing rule, so the agent must infer when this is the right call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.