linear-mcp-lean

Get diff threads

get_diff_threads

Look up specific diff review threads by URL or ID, with optional filters for resolved state and sort order.

Instructions

Exact lookup for diff review threads. Proxied to the hosted Linear MCP (no public GraphQL backing).

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": {
      "urlOrId": "<urlOrId>"
    },
    "name": "get_diff_threads"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`orderBy`	No	Sort order
`urlOrId`	Yes	Review URL, diff slug, PR id, identifier, or GitHub PR URL
`resolved`	No	Filter by resolved state
`threadId`	No	Top-level thread/comment id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions being proxied (useful context) but omits key behaviors like idempotency, safety, or error handling. For a read operation, more transparency would help.

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?

Very concise with two sentences. The purpose is front-loaded and the second sentence adds valuable context about the backend. No wasted words.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks details on return format, pagination, or practical use cases. A more complete description would improve usability.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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?

Description clearly states it performs an 'exact lookup for diff review threads', identifying the verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_diff or list_comments, which could cause confusion.

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 vs. alternatives. With many sibling tools such as list_comments or get_diff, the lack of explicit usage context is a significant gap.

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