Records a customer request in Linear, optionally linked to an issue or project. Use it to capture customer feedback and tie it to the relevant work.
Record a customer request, optionally attached to an issue or project. This is the one Linear mutation whose reply carries no object — it answers only with whether it worked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| variables | Yes | The request to record. |
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 a genuinely useful behavioral trait that no structured field conveys: the response carries no object and only indicates success/failure, which is important given there is no output schema. It stops short of mentioning permission or side-effect details, keeping it from a 5.
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 tightly written sentences with no waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently conveys the unusual no-object return without padding.
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 create mutation with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers the key agent-facing concerns: what it does and what it returns. The main gap is the absence of usage/permission context, which keeps it below a 5.
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 coverage is 100% and every parameter (including the nested input object fields) is fully documented in the schema. The description only lightly gestures at the attachment options ('an issue or project'), adding little beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('customer request'), which cleanly distinguishes it from linear_issue_create and linear_search_issues in the sibling list. It could go further by explicitly naming the alternative tool, but the operation and target object are unambiguous.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The phrase 'optionally attached to an issue or project' implies a relationship to those areas but does not help an agent decide between this tool and linear_issue_create.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.