Linear MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool searches for projects by name but doesn't reveal whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, what the return format looks like, or if there are rate limits. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 extremely concise at just four words ('Search for projects by name'), with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., a list of projects, error handling), how results are formatted, or any prerequisites like authentication. For a search operation in a context with multiple similar tools, more contextual information is needed to guide the agent properly.

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?

The description mentions searching 'by name,' which aligns with the single parameter 'name' in the input schema. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the schema already describes the parameter as 'Project name to search for (exact match)'), the description adds minimal value beyond what's in the structured data. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose as 'Search for projects by name,' which specifies the verb (search), resource (projects), and search criteria (by name). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'linear_search_issues' or 'linear_get_project,' which reduces clarity about when to use this specific search tool versus alternatives.

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. With sibling tools like 'linear_search_issues' (for searching issues) and 'linear_get_project' (for retrieving a specific project), there's no indication of whether this tool is for fuzzy matching, exact matching, or broader project discovery. The lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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