Linear MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'update' implying mutation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether updates are atomic or partial, error handling for invalid IDs, rate limits, or response format. For a bulk mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence ('Update multiple issues at once') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It directly conveys the core purpose without redundancy, earning a high score for conciseness.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (bulk mutation with nested objects), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical aspects like mutation effects, error handling, or usage context, making it incomplete for safe and effective agent use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50% (2 parameters total, with 'issueIds' and 'update' described in schema). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not explaining what 'update' entails or constraints like ID formats. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate for gaps but doesn't worsen understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Update multiple issues at once'), specifying the verb 'update' and resource 'issues', with 'multiple' indicating bulk operation. It distinguishes from single-issue updates like 'linear_create_issue' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other bulk operations like 'linear_create_issues' or 'linear_delete_issues', keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

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., authentication), compare to single-issue updates, or specify scenarios like batch editing versus individual changes. With sibling tools like 'linear_update_issue' (implied) not listed, the lack of explicit alternatives or context lowers the score.

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