Skip to main content
Glama

linear_addIssueToProject

Add an existing issue to a Linear project to organize and track work within project structures. Specify the issue ID and project ID to establish the connection.

Instructions

Add an existing issue to a project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueIdYesID or identifier of the issue to add to the project
projectIdYesID of the project to add the issue to

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function that implements the tool logic for linear_addIssueToProject. It validates the input arguments using a type guard and calls the LinearService method to add the issue to the project.
    export function handleAddIssueToProject(linearService: LinearService) {
      return async (args: unknown) => {
        try {
          if (!isAddIssueToProjectArgs(args)) {
            throw new Error('Invalid arguments for addIssueToProject');
          }
    
          return await linearService.addIssueToProject(args.issueId, args.projectId);
        } catch (error) {
          logError('Error adding issue to project', error);
          throw error;
        }
      };
    }
  • The MCPToolDefinition containing the input schema (issueId and projectId required) and output schema for the linear_addIssueToProject tool.
    export const addIssueToProjectToolDefinition: MCPToolDefinition = {
      name: 'linear_addIssueToProject',
      description: 'Add an existing issue to a project',
      input_schema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          issueId: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'ID or identifier of the issue to add to the project',
          },
          projectId: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'ID of the project to add the issue to',
          },
        },
        required: ['issueId', 'projectId'],
      },
      output_schema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          success: { type: 'boolean' },
          issue: {
            type: 'object',
            properties: {
              id: { type: 'string' },
              identifier: { type: 'string' },
              title: { type: 'string' },
              project: {
                type: 'object',
                properties: {
                  id: { type: 'string' },
                  name: { type: 'string' },
                },
              },
            },
          },
        },
      },
    };
  • Registration of the tool name 'linear_addIssueToProject' mapped to its handler function in the central tool handlers registry.
    linear_addIssueToProject: handleAddIssueToProject(linearService),
  • Type guard function used in the handler to validate that input arguments contain required string fields: issueId and projectId.
    /**
     * Type guard for linear_addIssueToProject tool arguments
     */
    export function isAddIssueToProjectArgs(args: unknown): args is {
      issueId: string;
      projectId: string;
    } {
      return (
        typeof args === 'object' &&
        args !== null &&
        'issueId' in args &&
        typeof (args as { issueId: string }).issueId === 'string' &&
        'projectId' in args &&
        typeof (args as { projectId: string }).projectId === 'string'
      );
    }
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('Add') which implies a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions required, whether this is reversible, what happens if the issue is already in the project, error conditions, or rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resources, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, updated issue object), error handling, or side effects. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and outcomes.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (issueId, projectId) clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, validation rules, or relationships between parameters), so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Add') and resources ('existing issue to a project'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like linear_createIssue (creates new issue) and linear_assignIssue (assigns to user), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from linear_transferIssue (could involve project changes) or linear_addIssueToCycle (similar structure but different target).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., issue must exist, project must exist), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new issues), or clarify relationships with similar tools like linear_transferIssue or linear_addIssueToCycle.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tacticlaunch/mcp-linear'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server