Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Linear

Linear

by tacticlaunch
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

linear_getWorkflowStates

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve workflow states for a specific Linear team, optionally including archived states. Use to understand the stages issues can move through.

Instructions

Get workflow states for a team

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": {
      "teamId": "<teamId>"
    },
    "name": "linear_getWorkflowStates"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
teamIdYesID of the team to get workflow states for
includeArchivedNoWhether to include archived states (default: false)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.4.2
    • changedOutput schema / properties / items / items / properties / color / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedOutput schema / properties / items / items / properties / description / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.1
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "items": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "color": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "description": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "name": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "position": {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          "type": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "items"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations thoroughly declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the schema (e.g., no mention of response size or pagination), but there is no contradiction. With strong annotation coverage, the bar is lower, and this meets the minimum.

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 sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and includes the target scope ('for a team'). The structure is optimal for quick comprehension.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool has a straightforward purpose with only two parameters and an existing output schema, so return values are handled elsewhere. Given the annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is sufficient for an agent to call this correctly. It misses minor context like 'archived states are excluded by default', but that is inferable from the schema, so not a significant gap.

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%, so both parameters (teamId and includeArchived) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning or context for parameters, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3. The description's simplicity aligns with the schema's completeness.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('workflow states for a team'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like linear_createWorkflowState and linear_updateWorkflowState by being a retrieval operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other getters (e.g., linear_getTeamLabels) beyond the resource type, but the resource name is specific enough.

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. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. For a simple getter, some implicit usage context exists (e.g., when need workflow states), but the lack of any explicit direction warrants a low score.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools