Skip to main content
Glama

linear_removeProjectFromInitiative

Disassociate a project from an initiative in Linear to manage project organization and initiative scope.

Instructions

Remove a project from an initiative

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
initiativeIdYesThe ID of the initiative
projectIdYesThe ID of the project to remove

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that implements the core logic for the linear_removeProjectFromInitiative tool. It validates the input using a type guard and calls the Linear service to remove the project from the initiative.
    export function removeProjectFromInitiativeHandler(linearService: LinearService) {
      return async (args: unknown) => {
        if (!isRemoveProjectFromInitiativeInput(args)) {
          throw new Error('Invalid input for removeProjectFromInitiative');
        }
    
        console.log(
          `[removeProjectFromInitiative] Removing project ${args.projectId} from initiative ${args.initiativeId}`,
        );
        const result = await linearService.removeProjectFromInitiative(
          args.initiativeId,
          args.projectId,
        );
        console.log(`[removeProjectFromInitiative] Project removed successfully`);
        return result;
      };
    }
  • The MCP tool definition for linear_removeProjectFromInitiative, including input schema (initiativeId and projectId required) and output schema.
    {
      name: 'linear_removeProjectFromInitiative',
      description: 'Remove a project from an initiative',
      input_schema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          initiativeId: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'The ID of the initiative',
          },
          projectId: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'The ID of the project to remove',
          },
        },
        required: ['initiativeId', 'projectId'],
      },
      output_schema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          success: { type: 'boolean' },
          message: { type: 'string' },
          project: {
            type: 'object',
            properties: {
              id: { type: 'string' },
              name: { type: 'string' },
            },
          },
          initiative: {
            type: 'object',
            properties: {
              id: { type: 'string' },
              name: { type: 'string' },
            },
          },
        },
      },
    },
  • Registration of the removeProjectFromInitiativeHandler in the registerToolHandlers function, mapping 'linear_removeProjectFromInitiative' to the handler.
    linear_removeProjectFromInitiative: removeProjectFromInitiativeHandler(linearService),
  • Registration of the initiative tool definitions (including linear_removeProjectFromInitiative) into the allToolDefinitions array.
    // Initiative Management tools
    ...initiativeToolDefinitions,
  • Type guard function used in the handler to validate input arguments for the linear_removeProjectFromInitiative tool.
     * Type guard for linear_removeProjectFromInitiative tool arguments
     */
    export function isRemoveProjectFromInitiativeInput(args: unknown): args is {
      initiativeId: string;
      projectId: string;
    } {
      return (
        typeof args === 'object' &&
        args !== null &&
        'initiativeId' in args &&
        typeof (args as { initiativeId: string }).initiativeId === 'string' &&
        'projectId' in args &&
        typeof (args as { projectId: string }).projectId === '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. While 'Remove' implies a mutation, it doesn't specify whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, or what happens to the project after removal (e.g., does it get archived or deleted?). The description lacks critical behavioral details for a mutation tool.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values, leaving significant gaps in understanding how the tool operates in practice.

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 clear parameter documentation. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain format constraints or relationships between initiativeId and projectId). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 ('Remove') and the target relationship ('a project from an initiative'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'linear_removeIssueLabel' or 'linear_archiveInitiative', which also involve removal operations but on different resources.

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., the project must be currently linked to the initiative), nor does it reference related tools like 'linear_addProjectToInitiative' or 'linear_getInitiativeProjects' for context. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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