Skip to main content
Glama

linear_updateProject

Modify existing Linear projects by updating their name, description, content, or state to reflect current progress and requirements.

Instructions

Update an existing project in Linear

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID of the project to update
nameNoNew name of the project
descriptionNoNew short summary of the project
contentNoNew content of the project (Markdown supported)
stateNoNew state of the project (e.g., 'planned', 'started', 'paused', 'completed', 'canceled')

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function that implements the logic for the 'linear_updateProject' tool. It validates the input arguments using the isUpdateProjectArgs type guard and calls the LinearService.updateProject method to perform the update.
    export function handleUpdateProject(linearService: LinearService) {
      return async (args: unknown) => {
        try {
          if (!isUpdateProjectArgs(args)) {
            throw new Error('Invalid arguments for updateProject');
          }
    
          return await linearService.updateProject(args);
        } catch (error) {
          logError('Error updating project', error);
          throw error;
        }
      };
  • Defines the input and output JSON schemas for the 'linear_updateProject' tool, including parameters like project ID, name, description, content, and state.
    export const updateProjectToolDefinition: MCPToolDefinition = {
      name: 'linear_updateProject',
      description: 'Update an existing project in Linear',
      input_schema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          id: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'ID of the project to update',
          },
          name: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'New name of the project',
          },
          description: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'New short summary of the project',
          },
          content: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'New content of the project (Markdown supported)',
          },
          state: {
            type: 'string',
            description:
              "New state of the project (e.g., 'planned', 'started', 'paused', 'completed', 'canceled')",
          },
        },
        required: ['id'],
      },
      output_schema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          id: { type: 'string' },
          name: { type: 'string' },
          description: { type: 'string' },
          state: { type: 'string' },
          url: { type: 'string' },
        },
      },
    };
  • Registers the 'linear_updateProject' tool by mapping it to the handleUpdateProject handler function within the registerToolHandlers factory.
    linear_updateProject: handleUpdateProject(linearService),
  • Type guard function used to validate the input arguments for the 'linear_updateProject' tool before processing.
    export function isUpdateProjectArgs(args: unknown): args is {
      id: string;
      name?: string;
      description?: string;
      content?: string;
      state?: string;
    } {
      return (
        typeof args === 'object' &&
        args !== null &&
        'id' in args &&
        typeof (args as { id: string }).id === 'string' &&
        (!('name' in args) || typeof (args as { name: string }).name === 'string') &&
        (!('description' in args) ||
          typeof (args as { description: string }).description === 'string') &&
        (!('content' in args) || typeof (args as { content: string }).content === 'string') &&
        (!('state' in args) || typeof (args as { state: string }).state === '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. While 'Update' implies mutation, it doesn't describe what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates), whether changes are reversible, permission requirements, error conditions, or rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation and follows the principle of front-loading the essential information.

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 the tool returns, error handling, side effects, or behavioral characteristics. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context about the tool's operation is missing.

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 the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't provide extra value like explaining parameter interactions or constraints.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing project in Linear'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like linear_updateInitiative or linear_updateIssue, which follow the same 'update' pattern for 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 (like needing project ID), contrast with linear_createProject for new projects, or specify scenarios where updating is appropriate versus other operations like archiving or deleting.

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