Retrieve a single Linear project's details, including content, milestones, and members, by providing its UUID or URL slug.
Get one project with its content, milestones and members. Accepts the project's UUID or the slug from its URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variables | Yes | Which project 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, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful return-scope context (content, milestones, members) but does not disclose auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior beyond what annotations provide.
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, front-loaded with the core action and return scope followed by the accepted identifier forms. Every phrase contributes information and there is no boilerplate.
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, read-only tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description leaves little missing. It names the main returned sub-resources but does not clarify edge cases like not-found behavior or what 'content' includes in detail.
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 description's parameter note ('Accepts the project's UUID or the slug from its URL') merely repeats the schema description for 'id' without adding format examples, ambiguity resolution, or lookup behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the sole parameter.
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 ('Get one project') and adds scope ('with its content, milestones and members'). This distinguishes it implicitly from list tools like linear_projects_list, but it never explicitly names an alternative or sibling, so it falls short of the highest clarity tier.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as linear_projects_list or other project endpoints. It only says what the tool fetches, not when an agent should choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.