linear-mcp-lean

List issue labels

list_issue_labels

Retrieve issue labels with ID, name, color, and group status. Filter by exact label name to narrow results. Returns up to 50 labels by default.

Instructions

List issue labels → [{id, name, color, isGroup}]. Optional name filter.

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_issue_labels"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Filter by exact label name
`limit`	No	Max rows (default 50)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations available. The description only lists output fields and mentions an optional filter. It does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or whether it returns all or paginated results, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

Extremely concise: one sentence plus an output hint. No wasted words; every part earns its place.

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?

Provides inline output structure, which compensates for missing output schema. However, does not explain the `limit` parameter behavior or pagination; simple tool but could be slightly more 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no new meaning beyond 'Optional `name` filter', which repeats the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (List), resource (issue labels), and output format ([{id, name, color, isGroup}]), differentiating from siblings like list_project_labels.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives provided. The optional `name` filter is noted, but no guidance on when this tool is preferred over others like list_issue_statuses or list_project_labels.

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