linear-mcp-lean

Save document

save_document

Create a new document with title, optional markdown content, and project assignment, or update an existing document by providing its id.

Instructions

Create (no id) or update (id) a document → {id, title, slugId}. Create requires title; project (name or id) resolves server-side.

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": "save_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Document id to UPDATE; omit to create
`title`	No	Title (required on create)
`content`	No	Markdown content
`project`	No	Project name or id to attach the doc to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains create/update behavior and return values, but lacks details on partial update behavior (e.g., whether omitted fields are preserved), idempotency, or error handling for invalid ids. Adequate but with notable gaps.

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, consisting of two sentences with no extraneous information. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first defines the operation and return, the second clarifies parameter conditions.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main operational modes (create/update), required fields, and return format. It does not specify partial update semantics or error states, but is mostly complete for typical usage.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that id is used for updates, title is required on create, and project resolves server-side—details not fully captured in the schema. Content is not elaborated beyond schema, but overall adds meaningful context.

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 tool performs create or update operations on documents, distinguishes between the two paths based on the presence of an id, and specifies the return value. It is specific to documents and differentiates from sibling save_* tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context on when to use create vs update (based on id), and notes that title is required on create and project resolves server-side. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives, but the usage is well-defined for a save operation.

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