Skip to main content
Glama

linear_unarchiveInitiative

Restore archived initiatives in Linear to make them active and visible again in project management workflows.

Instructions

Unarchive an initiative

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
initiativeIdYesThe ID of the initiative to unarchive

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function for linear_unarchiveInitiative tool. Validates input using isArchiveInitiativeInput type guard and calls linearService.unarchiveInitiative(initiativeId).
    export function unarchiveInitiativeHandler(linearService: LinearService) {
      return async (args: unknown) => {
        if (!isArchiveInitiativeInput(args)) {
          throw new Error('Invalid input for unarchiveInitiative');
        }
    
        console.log(`[unarchiveInitiative] Unarchiving initiative: ${args.initiativeId}`);
        const result = await linearService.unarchiveInitiative(args.initiativeId);
        console.log(`[unarchiveInitiative] Initiative unarchived successfully`);
        return result;
      };
    }
  • Registration of the linear_unarchiveInitiative handler in the registerToolHandlers function.
    linear_unarchiveInitiative: unarchiveInitiativeHandler(linearService),
  • Tool schema definition including input (initiativeId) and output (success boolean).
    {
      name: 'linear_unarchiveInitiative',
      description: 'Unarchive an initiative',
      input_schema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          initiativeId: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'The ID of the initiative to unarchive',
          },
        },
        required: ['initiativeId'],
      },
      output_schema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          success: { type: 'boolean' },
        },
      },
    },
  • Type guard for validating linear_unarchiveInitiative input arguments (though handler uses isArchiveInitiativeInput).
    export function isUnarchiveInitiativeArgs(args: unknown): args is {
      id: string;
    } {
      return (
        typeof args === 'object' &&
        args !== null &&
        'id' in args &&
        typeof (args as { id: string }).id === 'string'
      );
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Unarchive' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether this is reversible, what happens to associated data, or what the expected outcome is. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the essential action and resource. There's zero wasted language, making it efficient for quick comprehension while covering the basic purpose.

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 explain what 'unarchive' means in this context, what changes occur, whether there are side effects, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of state-change operations, more context is needed for the agent to use this tool effectively.

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 the single parameter 'initiativeId' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value addition.

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 ('unarchive') and the target resource ('an initiative'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling tool 'linear_archiveInitiative' beyond the opposite action, missing an opportunity to clarify the relationship between archive/unarchive operations.

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., that the initiative must already be archived), nor does it reference the sibling 'linear_archiveInitiative' for context about the archive/unarchive lifecycle.

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