Skip to main content
Glama

linear_archiveInitiative

Archive initiatives in Linear to remove them from active workflows while preserving historical data for reference.

Instructions

Archive an initiative

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
initiativeIdYesThe ID of the initiative to archive

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function for the linear_archiveInitiative tool. It validates the input using isArchiveInitiativeInput type guard and delegates to linearService.archiveInitiative(initiativeId). Includes logging.
    export function archiveInitiativeHandler(linearService: LinearService) {
      return async (args: unknown) => {
        if (!isArchiveInitiativeInput(args)) {
          throw new Error('Invalid input for archiveInitiative');
        }
    
        console.log(`[archiveInitiative] Archiving initiative: ${args.initiativeId}`);
        const result = await linearService.archiveInitiative(args.initiativeId);
        console.log(`[archiveInitiative] Initiative archived successfully`);
        return result;
      };
    }
  • Defines the tool schema including input (initiativeId string required) and output (success boolean).
    {
      name: 'linear_archiveInitiative',
      description: 'Archive an initiative',
      input_schema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          initiativeId: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'The ID of the initiative to archive',
          },
        },
        required: ['initiativeId'],
      },
      output_schema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          success: { type: 'boolean' },
        },
      },
    },
  • Registers the tool name 'linear_archiveInitiative' to the archiveInitiativeHandler function within the registerToolHandlers map.
    linear_archiveInitiative: archiveInitiativeHandler(linearService),
  • Type guard function isArchiveInitiativeInput used in the handler to validate tool arguments contain a valid initiativeId string.
    /**
     * Type guard for linear_archiveInitiative tool arguments
     */
    export function isArchiveInitiativeInput(args: unknown): args is {
      initiativeId: string;
    } {
      return (
        typeof args === 'object' &&
        args !== null &&
        'initiativeId' in args &&
        typeof (args as { initiativeId: string }).initiativeId === 'string'
      );
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Archive' implies a state change (likely from active to archived), but the description doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what happens to associated projects/issues, whether it requires specific permissions, or what the response looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise at just three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what archiving entails, whether it's reversible, what permissions are needed, or what happens to related entities. Given the complexity of archiving operations in project management systems, more context is needed.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'initiativeId' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage but doesn't add value.

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 verb ('archive') and resource ('an initiative'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'linear_unarchiveInitiative' or explain what archiving means in this context versus deletion or other state changes.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when archiving is appropriate versus deleting (linear_deleteInitiative) or unarchiving (linear_unarchiveInitiative), nor does it discuss prerequisites like initiative state or permissions required.

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