Linear

linear_createIssue

Create a new Linear issue with title, team, and optional details like assignee, priority, due date, and labels.

Instructions

Create a new issue in Linear

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "teamId": "<teamId>"
    },
    "name": "linear_createIssue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	Title of the issue
`teamId`	Yes	ID of the team the issue belongs to
`cycleId`	No	ID of the cycle to add the issue to
`dueDate`	No	The date at which the issue is due (YYYY-MM-DD format)
`stateId`	No	ID of the workflow state for the issue
`estimate`	No	The estimated complexity/points for the issue
`labelIds`	No	IDs of the labels to attach to the issue
`parentId`	No	ID of the parent issue (to create as a sub-task)
`priority`	No	Priority of the issue (0 = No priority, 1 = Urgent, 2 = High, 3 = Normal, 4 = Low)
`projectId`	No	ID of the project the issue belongs to
`sortOrder`	No	The position of the issue in relation to other issues
`assigneeId`	No	ID of the user to assign the issue to
`templateId`	No	ID of a template to use for creating the issue
`description`	No	Description of the issue (Markdown supported)
`subscriberIds`	No	IDs of the users to subscribe to the issue
`projectMilestoneId`	No	ID of the project milestone the issue belongs to

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`url`	No
`title`	No
`identifier`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.2Aug 27, 2026
- changedOutput schema / properties / url / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.1Jul 30, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "identifier": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "title": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.2May 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / projectMilestoneId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "ID of the project milestone the issue belongs to",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedAug 18, 2025

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already communicate that this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, so the description adds no behavioral detail beyond what the name and annotations imply. It does not mention side effects, required preconditions, or duplicate-submission behavior, and there is no contradiction with the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It communicates the essential operation efficiently and leaves parameter details to the schema.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The input schema and output schema cover the data contract well, but the description is not fully complete for tool selection: it omits usage guidance around closely related tools and provides no practical context about creation behavior. For a create operation with 16 parameters and many sibling tools, this is adequate but has clear 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and all 16 parameters have meaningful descriptions, so the schema carries the semantic weight. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information, which matches the baseline of 3.

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 core action: create a new issue in Linear. It is obvious this tool creates an issue rather than updating, searching, or archiving one, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings such as linear_createIssueFromTemplate.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like linear_createIssueFromTemplate, linear_updateIssue, or linear_createIssueRelation. The only usage signal is the verb 'create,' which is implicit rather than explicit.

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

Deploy Server