Skip to main content
Glama
tiovikram

Linear MCP Server

by tiovikram

create_issue

Create new issues in Linear with title, description, team assignment, priority, and labels to track and manage project tasks.

Instructions

Create a new issue in Linear

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesIssue title
descriptionNoIssue description (markdown supported)
teamIdYesTeam ID
assigneeIdNoAssignee user ID (optional)
priorityNoPriority (0-4, optional)
labelsNoLabel IDs to apply (optional)

Implementation Reference

  • The handler logic for the 'create_issue' tool. It validates the required title and teamId, calls linearClient.createIssue with the provided arguments, and returns the created issue as JSON text content.
    case "create_issue": {
      const args = request.params.arguments as unknown as CreateIssueArgs;
      if (!args?.title || !args?.teamId) {
        throw new Error("Title and teamId are required");
      }
    
      const issue = await linearClient.createIssue({
        title: args.title,
        description: args.description,
        teamId: args.teamId,
        assigneeId: args.assigneeId,
        priority: args.priority,
        labelIds: args.labels,
      });
    
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify(issue, null, 2),
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • TypeScript type definition for the arguments accepted by the create_issue tool handler.
    type CreateIssueArgs = {
      title: string;
      description?: string;
      teamId: string;
      assigneeId?: string;
      priority?: number;
      labels?: string[];
    };
  • src/index.ts:61-99 (registration)
    Registration of the 'create_issue' tool in the ListTools response, including name, description, and detailed inputSchema matching the handler args.
    {
      name: "create_issue",
      description: "Create a new issue in Linear",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          title: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Issue title",
          },
          description: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Issue description (markdown supported)",
          },
          teamId: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Team ID",
          },
          assigneeId: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Assignee user ID (optional)",
          },
          priority: {
            type: "number",
            description: "Priority (0-4, optional)",
            minimum: 0,
            maximum: 4,
          },
          labels: {
            type: "array",
            items: {
              type: "string",
            },
            description: "Label IDs to apply (optional)",
          },
        },
        required: ["title", "teamId"],
      },
    },
  • src/index.ts:47-47 (registration)
    Declaration of 'create_issue' tool capability in the server capabilities.
    create_issue: true,

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description provides no behavioral details beyond stating it creates an issue. No mention of return values, permissions, or side effects.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Very concise (one sentence) but lacks informational content. It is not wasteful, but it is under-specified for a tool with six parameters.

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?

Given the complexity (6 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides insufficient context. It does not explain what the tool returns or how to obtain required IDs like teamId.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline.

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 (create) and resource (issue in Linear). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_comment, create_cycle, etc. However, it lacks nuance about what an 'issue' entails.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update_issue, search_issues). No context about prerequisites or typical workflow.

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