linear-mcp-lean

Create issue label

create_issue_label

Create an issue label with a name and color. Optionally scope it to a team or create a workspace label.

Instructions

Create an issue label → {id, name, color}. team (name or id) scopes it to a team; omit for a workspace label.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_issue_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Label name
`team`	No	Team name or id (omit for a workspace label)
`color`	No	Hex color, e.g. #bec2c8

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It fails to disclose important behaviors such as idempotency, permission requirements, or whether duplicate names are allowed. The description is too minimal for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence with an example and immediate clarification of optional behavior. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple creation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return format and team scoping adequately. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., duplicates, permissions) and usage guidance, leaving some 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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by clarifying the `team` parameter (name or id, omit for workspace label) and providing an example color format. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 action (create), the resource (issue label), and the return format ({id, name, color}). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_issue_labels by focusing on creation.

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?

The description implies usage for creating labels at workspace or team level via the `team` parameter, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternative creation tools like create_attachment. However, the context is clear for typical use.

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