linear-mcp-lean

Get status updates

get_status_updates

Retrieve status updates by ID or list all updates for a project or initiative. Returns details like body, health, creation time, and author.

Instructions

Get one status update by id, or list a project's/initiative's updates → [{id, body, health, createdAt, url, authorName}]. type selects project vs initiative.

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": {
      "type": "<type>"
    },
    "name": "get_status_updates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Status update id — returns just that one
`type`	Yes	Status update type
`limit`	No	Max rows when listing (default 50)
`project`	No	Project name or id (when type=project)
`initiative`	No	Initiative name or id (when type=initiative)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only discloses the return structure. It fails to mention any behavioral aspects such as side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it is a read-only operation.

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, no wasted words. Front-loads the verb and resource, and provides the return structure concisely.

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?

The description covers the main use cases and return format, but it does not clarify that `type` is always required (even with `id`), nor does it explain conditional requirements for `project` or `initiative` when listing. The `limit` parameter is also not mentioned.

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?

The description adds significant context beyond the schema, clarifying the dual mode (get by id vs list by type) and the return format. It explains how `type` and `id` relate, which the schema alone does not fully convey.

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 tool retrieves status updates either by id or lists for a project/initiative, specifying the return format. It distinguishes from siblings implicitly by focusing on status updates, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains when to use the tool for fetching or listing, but does not provide guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for creating or updating) or mention alternative tools like save_status_update.

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