Skip to main content
Glama
wkoutre

Linear MCP Server

by wkoutre

linear_addIssueToProject

Add an existing issue to a Linear project to organize and track work within specific initiatives. Provide the issue ID and project ID to link them.

Instructions

Add an existing issue to a project

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueIdYesID or identifier of the issue to add to the project
projectIdYesID of the project to add the issue to

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function that validates input arguments using type guard and calls the LinearService to add an issue to a project.
    export function handleAddIssueToProject(linearService: LinearService) {
      return async (args: unknown) => {
        try {
          if (!isAddIssueToProjectArgs(args)) {
            throw new Error("Invalid arguments for addIssueToProject");
          }
          
          return await linearService.addIssueToProject(args.issueId, args.projectId);
        } catch (error) {
          logError("Error adding issue to project", error);
          throw error;
        }
      };
    }
  • MCPToolDefinition for linear_addIssueToProject, defining input schema (issueId, projectId) and output schema.
    export const addIssueToProjectToolDefinition: MCPToolDefinition = {
      name: "linear_addIssueToProject",
      description: "Add an existing issue to a project",
      input_schema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          issueId: {
            type: "string",
            description: "ID or identifier of the issue to add to the project",
          },
          projectId: {
            type: "string",
            description: "ID of the project to add the issue to",
          },
        },
        required: ["issueId", "projectId"],
      },
      output_schema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          success: { type: "boolean" },
          issue: {
            type: "object",
            properties: {
              id: { type: "string" },
              identifier: { type: "string" },
              title: { type: "string" },
              project: {
                type: "object",
                properties: {
                  id: { type: "string" },
                  name: { type: "string" }
                }
              }
            }
          }
        }
      }
    };
  • Registration of the linear_addIssueToProject handler in the tool handlers map within registerToolHandlers function.
    linear_updateProject: handleUpdateProject(linearService),
    linear_addIssueToProject: handleAddIssueToProject(linearService),
    linear_getProjectIssues: handleGetProjectIssues(linearService),
  • Type guard function used in the handler to validate input arguments for linear_addIssueToProject.
    /**
     * Type guard for linear_addIssueToProject tool arguments
     */
    export function isAddIssueToProjectArgs(args: unknown): args is {
      issueId: string;
      projectId: string;
    } {
      return (
        typeof args === "object" &&
        args !== null &&
        "issueId" in args &&
        typeof (args as { issueId: string }).issueId === "string" &&
        "projectId" in args &&
        typeof (args as { projectId: string }).projectId === "string"
      );
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Add' but doesn't clarify if this is a mutation (likely yes), what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, what happens if the issue is already in the project, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with two parameters and no complex behavior to explain. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error conditions, side effects, or response format. While the purpose is clear, the lack of context for a write operation leaves the agent with insufficient information to use it confidently.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, constraints, or relationships between parameters). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Add') and resource ('an existing issue to a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like linear_createIssue (creates new issues) and linear_updateIssue (modifies issue properties), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like linear_addIssueToCycle, which adds issues to cycles rather than projects.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the issue and project must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot add to archived projects), or compare to similar tools like linear_addIssueToCycle or linear_transferIssue. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/wkoutre/linear-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server