linear-mcp-lean

Create attachment from upload

create_attachment_from_upload

Link an uploaded asset to a Linear issue after client-side upload. Provide issue identifier and assetUrl from prepare_attachment_upload to create the attachment.

Instructions

Finalize an upload: link an already-uploaded assetUrl to an issue → {id, title, url}. Call after prepare_attachment_upload + the client-side byte PUT.

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>",
      "assetUrl": "<assetUrl>"
    },
    "name": "create_attachment_from_upload"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`issue`	Yes	Issue identifier or id
`title`	No	Attachment title (defaults to the asset URL)
`assetUrl`	Yes	assetUrl returned by prepare_attachment_upload
`subtitle`	No	Attachment subtitle

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the return value but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it's destructive) or auth requirements. Adequate but could be more transparent.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with key information, no wasted words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the purpose, workflow position, and expected output. No obvious gaps.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by explaining the assetUrl origin and title default behavior, which goes beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's verb (finalize/link), resource (attachment), and context (after upload). It distinguishes it from prepare_attachment_upload by positioning it as the next step.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Call after prepare_attachment_upload + the client-side byte PUT,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. Does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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