Skip to main content
Glama

linear_archiveIssue

Archive completed or inactive issues in Linear to maintain an organized project workspace by removing them from active views while preserving their data.

Instructions

Archive an issue

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueIdYesID or identifier of the issue to archive (e.g., ABC-123)

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the linear_archiveIssue tool. It validates the input arguments using isArchiveIssueArgs type guard and calls the LinearService.archiveIssue method to archive the specified issue.
    /**
     * Handler for archiving an issue
     */
    export function handleArchiveIssue(linearService: LinearService) {
      return async (args: unknown) => {
        try {
          if (!isArchiveIssueArgs(args)) {
            throw new Error('Invalid arguments for archiveIssue');
          }
    
          return await linearService.archiveIssue(args.issueId);
        } catch (error) {
          logError('Error archiving issue', error);
          throw error;
        }
      };
    }
  • The MCP tool definition for linear_archiveIssue, including the name, description, input schema (requires issueId), and output schema.
    export const archiveIssueToolDefinition: MCPToolDefinition = {
      name: 'linear_archiveIssue',
      description: 'Archive an issue',
      input_schema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          issueId: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'ID or identifier of the issue to archive (e.g., ABC-123)',
          },
        },
        required: ['issueId'],
      },
      output_schema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          success: { type: 'boolean' },
          message: { type: 'string' },
        },
      },
    };
  • Registration of the linear_archiveIssue handler within the registerToolHandlers function, mapping the tool name to handleArchiveIssue(linearService).
      linear_archiveIssue: handleArchiveIssue(linearService),
      linear_setIssuePriority: handleSetIssuePriority(linearService),
      linear_transferIssue: handleTransferIssue(linearService),
      linear_duplicateIssue: handleDuplicateIssue(linearService),
      linear_getIssueHistory: handleGetIssueHistory(linearService),
    
      // Comment Management tools
      linear_getComments: handleGetComments(linearService),
    };
  • Type guard function isArchiveIssueArgs used in the handler to validate input arguments for the linear_archiveIssue tool.
    /**
     * Type guard for linear_archiveIssue tool arguments
     */
    export function isArchiveIssueArgs(args: unknown): args is {
      issueId: string;
    } {
      return (
        typeof args === 'object' &&
        args !== null &&
        'issueId' in args &&
        typeof (args as { issueId: string }).issueId === 'string'
      );
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Archive an issue' implies a mutation (changing issue state), but it doesn't specify if this is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects related data (e.g., comments or labels), or what the outcome looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, as seen in the 'update_drive' example scoring 2.

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 ('Archive an issue'), consisting of a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It directly states the tool's action without unnecessary words, earning a high score for efficiency, similar to the 'process' example's conciseness aspect scoring 2 for under-specification, but here the brevity is appropriate for the minimal content provided.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what archiving does behaviorally, what to expect as a result, or how it differs from other state-changing tools. This leaves the agent with insufficient information for safe and effective use, comparable to the 'update_drive' example scoring 2 for similar gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'issueId' documented as 'ID or identifier of the issue to archive (e.g., ABC-123)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format constraints or examples. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Archive an issue' states the basic action (archive) and resource (issue), which provides a minimal understanding of purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what archiving entails in this context (e.g., hiding, deactivating, or moving to a special state) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like linear_unarchiveInitiative or linear_deleteInitiative, making it vague compared to higher-scoring examples.

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 prerequisites (e.g., issue must be active), exclusions (e.g., cannot archive if in a cycle), or related tools like linear_deleteInitiative for comparison. This leaves the agent with no contextual cues for selection, similar to the 'update_drive' example with a score of 2.

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