Fetch a specific Linear cycle and its issues by UUID to review sprint scope and track related project work.
Get one cycle with the issues in it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variables | Yes | Which cycle to fetch. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — that issues are included in the payload — but says nothing about issue volume, pagination, or whether the cycle itself is fully populated.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. It could not be trimmed without losing the issues-inclusion detail.
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 simple single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and a complete schema, the description is adequate but thin. Without an output schema, it should say more about what the returned cycle/issues structure contains or any limits on the embedded issues.
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% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema as the cycle's UUID. The description's phrase 'one cycle' adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (cycle), and adds a meaningful scope detail: it returns the cycle along with its issues. This distinguishes it somewhat from a bare cycle fetch, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like linear_project_get or linear_issues_list.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the tool to call when it has a cycle UUID and wants its issues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.