linear-mcp-lean

Create attachment

create_attachment

Link an external URL to a Linear issue as an attachment. Provide the issue identifier, URL, and title.

Instructions

Link an external URL to an issue as an attachment → {id, title, url}. issue accepts an identifier or id.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "issue": "<issue>",
      "url": "<url>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_attachment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	URL to attach
`issue`	Yes	Issue identifier or id
`title`	Yes	Attachment title
`subtitle`	No	Attachment subtitle

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description mentions output shape and parameter behavior but fails to disclose mutation details, error cases, or prerequisites for a creation action.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Single sentence with clear action and output arrow; concise but could benefit from structured format for 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?

Lacks output schema and usage context; partially addresses return shape but omits error handling, prerequisites, and example scenarios.

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%; description adds value by clarifying that 'issue' accepts an identifier or id and showing output fields, but does not fully compensate for missing parameter details like 'subtitle'.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Clearly states the tool links an external URL to an issue as an attachment, distinguishing it from the sibling 'create_attachment_from_upload' which handles file uploads.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_attachment_from_upload'; context about external URL usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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