Skip to main content
Glama

linear_getIssueHistory

Retrieve the complete change history for a Linear issue to track modifications, understand updates, and review past actions.

Instructions

Get the history of changes made to an issue

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueIdYesID or identifier of the issue (e.g., ABC-123)
limitNoMaximum number of history events to return (default: 10)

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that implements the core logic for the linear_getIssueHistory tool. It validates the input arguments using a type guard and delegates to the LinearService to fetch the issue history.
    export function handleGetIssueHistory(linearService: LinearService) {
      return async (args: unknown) => {
        try {
          if (!isGetIssueHistoryArgs(args)) {
            throw new Error('Invalid arguments for getIssueHistory');
          }
    
          return await linearService.getIssueHistory(args.issueId, args.limit);
        } catch (error) {
          logError('Error getting issue history', error);
          throw error;
        }
      };
    }
  • The tool definition including input and output schemas for linear_getIssueHistory.
    export const getIssueHistoryToolDefinition: MCPToolDefinition = {
      name: 'linear_getIssueHistory',
      description: 'Get the history of changes made to an issue',
      input_schema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          issueId: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'ID or identifier of the issue (e.g., ABC-123)',
          },
          limit: {
            type: 'number',
            description: 'Maximum number of history events to return (default: 10)',
          },
        },
        required: ['issueId'],
      },
      output_schema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          issueId: { type: 'string' },
          identifier: { type: 'string' },
          history: {
            type: 'array',
            items: {
              type: 'object',
              properties: {
                id: { type: 'string' },
                createdAt: { type: 'string' },
                actor: { type: 'object' },
                type: { type: 'string' },
                from: { type: 'string' },
                to: { type: 'string' },
              },
            },
          },
        },
      },
    };
  • Registration of the tool handler in the central registerToolHandlers function, mapping 'linear_getIssueHistory' to its handler.
    linear_getIssueHistory: handleGetIssueHistory(linearService),
  • Type guard function used in the handler to validate input arguments for linear_getIssueHistory.
    export function isGetIssueHistoryArgs(args: unknown): args is {
      issueId: string;
      limit?: number;
    } {
      return (
        typeof args === 'object' &&
        args !== null &&
        'issueId' in args &&
        typeof (args as { issueId: string }).issueId === 'string' &&
        (!('limit' in args) || typeof (args as { limit: number }).limit === 'number')
      );
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] the history of changes,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination (beyond the 'limit' parameter), error handling, or the format of returned history events. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective use.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core functionality, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 complexity of retrieving issue history (which may involve structured data like timestamps, user actions, and field changes), the description is insufficient. No annotations exist to clarify behavioral traits, and there's no output schema to describe return values. The description alone doesn't provide enough context for reliable tool invocation, especially for a read operation that could involve nuanced data.

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, clearly documenting both parameters ('issueId' and 'limit'). The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of history events or details on how 'limit' interacts with default behavior. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and resource ('history of changes made to an issue'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'linear_getIssueById' or 'linear_getIssues', which might also retrieve issue-related data but with different scopes.

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. For example, it doesn't specify if this should be used instead of 'linear_getIssueById' for historical data or how it relates to 'linear_getComments' for issue activity. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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