Linear MCP Server

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. It mentions the teamIds requirement constraint, but doesn't describe whether this is a write operation, what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. For a creation tool with no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that both add value. The first states the core purpose, the second provides critical parameter guidance. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

For a creation tool with 2 complex nested parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the teamIds constraint well but misses behavioral aspects like mutation implications, error handling, and relationship between project and issues parameters.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by clarifying the teamIds requirement (array vs single value) and referencing linear_get_teams for obtaining IDs. This compensates well for the schema coverage gap, though it doesn't explain all parameter relationships.

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 tool creates a new project with associated issues, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like linear_create_issue or linear_create_issues, which also create issues but without projects.

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 like linear_create_issue (for single issues) or linear_create_issues (for bulk issues without projects). It mentions teamIds requirement but doesn't explain the broader context for choosing this tool.

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