linear-mcp-lean

Save comment

save_comment

Add a comment to a Linear issue. Provide the issue identifier and Markdown body; returns the comment id and URL.

Instructions

Add a comment to an issue. Returns only {id, url}. issue accepts an identifier or id.

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": {
      "issue": "<issue>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "save_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	Yes	Comment body (Markdown)
`issue`	Yes	Issue identifier or id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return format is only {id, url}, which is useful. Doesn't mention permissions or side effects, but for a simple creation tool this is acceptable.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds value without waste.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers core aspects: purpose, parameters, and return value. Lacks guidance on error handling or prerequisites but sufficient for a simple tool.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds value by specifying that issue accepts identifier or id, going beyond schema. No additional context for body.

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?

Clearly states the tool adds a comment to an issue. Distinguishes from sibling tools like list_comments (read) and save_issue (different resource). Also specifies return value.

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?

Implies usage for adding comments but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or when-not-to-use context. Sibling list includes other creation tools but no differentiation.

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