linear-mcp-lean

List cycles

list_cycles

List cycles with id, number, name, start and end dates, optionally filtered by team name or id.

Instructions

List cycles → [{id, number, name, startsAt, endsAt}]. Optional team (name or id) scope.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_cycles"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`team`	No	Team name or id to scope to
`limit`	No	Max rows (default 50)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the output structure and optional team scoping but lacks details on pagination, sorting, default limit, or whether the operation is read-only. It is adequate but not rich in behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: one sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds essential optional scope. Every word earns its place, with no fluff.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and team filtering. It could mention the limit parameter's default or ordering, but the schema provides that detail, making the description reasonably complete.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters have clear descriptions. The tool description adds little beyond the schema (only restating team scope). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents both parameters.

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 verb 'List', the resource 'cycles', and the output format (array of objects with id, number, name, startsAt, endsAt). It distinguishes from sibling list tools like list_issues or list_diffs by specifying the exact resource and output fields.

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 mentions the optional 'team' scope, giving context on when to use that parameter. However, it does not provide guidance on when not to use this tool or compare it to alternative tools like search or filter functions.

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