linear_getActiveCycle
Retrieve the active cycle for a specific team by providing its ID.
Instructions
Get the currently active cycle for a team
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| teamId | Yes | ID of the team to get the active cycle for |
Retrieve the active cycle for a specific team by providing its ID.
Get the currently active cycle for a team
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| teamId | Yes | ID of the team to get the active cycle for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose what happens if no active cycle exists (e.g., returns null, error), authentication needs, or that the operation is read-only. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the essential purpose.
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?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should clarify return behavior (e.g., null vs error if no active cycle) and the meaning of 'active cycle'. It does not, leaving the agent underinformed.
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% (teamId is described). The description does not add extra meaning to the parameter beyond the schema's description. Baseline score of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('the currently active cycle for a team'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like linear_getCycles and linear_getCycleById by focusing specifically on the active cycle.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., getCycles, getCycleById). No mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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