Skip to main content
Glama
wkoutre

Linear MCP Server

by wkoutre

linear_createIssueRelation

Link Linear issues to show dependencies like blocks, duplicates, or related items using issue IDs and relation types.

Instructions

Create relations between issues (blocks, is blocked by, etc.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueIdYesID or identifier of the first issue (e.g., ABC-123)
relatedIssueIdYesID or identifier of the second issue (e.g., ABC-456)
typeYesType of relation: 'blocks', 'blocked_by', 'related', 'duplicate', 'duplicate_of'

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function for the linear_createIssueRelation tool. Validates input using isCreateIssueRelationArgs type guard and delegates to LinearService.createIssueRelation.
    export function handleCreateIssueRelation(linearService: LinearService) {
      return async (args: unknown) => {
        try {
          if (!isCreateIssueRelationArgs(args)) {
            throw new Error("Invalid arguments for createIssueRelation");
          }
          
          return await linearService.createIssueRelation(args.issueId, args.relatedIssueId, args.type);
        } catch (error) {
          logError("Error creating issue relation", error);
          throw error;
        }
      };
    }
  • Tool definition for linear_createIssueRelation, including input schema (issueId, relatedIssueId, type) and output schema.
    export const createIssueRelationToolDefinition: MCPToolDefinition = {
      name: "linear_createIssueRelation",
      description: "Create relations between issues (blocks, is blocked by, etc.)",
      input_schema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          issueId: {
            type: "string",
            description: "ID or identifier of the first issue (e.g., ABC-123)",
          },
          relatedIssueId: {
            type: "string",
            description: "ID or identifier of the second issue (e.g., ABC-456)",
          },
          type: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Type of relation: 'blocks', 'blocked_by', 'related', 'duplicate', 'duplicate_of'",
            enum: ["blocks", "blocked_by", "related", "duplicate", "duplicate_of"]
          },
        },
        required: ["issueId", "relatedIssueId", "type"],
      },
      output_schema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          success: { type: "boolean" },
          relation: {
            type: "object",
            properties: {
              id: { type: "string" },
              type: { type: "string" },
              issueIdentifier: { type: "string" },
              relatedIssueIdentifier: { type: "string" }
            }
          }
        }
      }
    };
  • Registration of the linear_createIssueRelation handler in the tool handlers map returned by registerToolHandlers.
    linear_createIssueRelation: handleCreateIssueRelation(linearService),
  • Type guard function used in the handler to validate arguments for linear_createIssueRelation.
    export function isCreateIssueRelationArgs(args: unknown): args is {
      issueId: string;
      relatedIssueId: string;
      type: "blocks" | "blocked_by" | "related" | "duplicate" | "duplicate_of";
    } {
      return (
        typeof args === "object" &&
        args !== null &&
        "issueId" in args &&
        typeof (args as { issueId: string }).issueId === "string" &&
        "relatedIssueId" in args &&
        typeof (args as { relatedIssueId: string }).relatedIssueId === "string" &&
        "type" in args &&
        typeof (args as { type: string }).type === "string" &&
        ["blocks", "blocked_by", "related", "duplicate", "duplicate_of"].includes((args as { type: string }).type)
      );
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a creation operation ('Create relations'), implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether the operation is reversible, if it affects issue status, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes helpful examples without unnecessary elaboration. 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or important behavioral context (e.g., whether relations are bidirectional, if duplicates are allowed). Given the complexity of creating issue relationships, more guidance is needed.

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%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters including an enum for 'type'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions relation types ('blocks, is blocked by, etc.') which the schema already enumerates. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Create relations') and resource ('between issues'), with examples of relation types ('blocks, is blocked by, etc.'). It distinguishes from siblings like linear_createIssue (creates new issues) and linear_updateIssue (modifies existing issues). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like linear_convertIssueToSubtask which also creates relationships.

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., both issues must exist), when not to use it (e.g., for parent-child relationships which might use linear_convertIssueToSubtask), or clarify the difference from similar tools like linear_updateIssue which might also modify relationships.

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