Linear MCP Server

linear_duplicateIssue

Create a copy of an existing issue in Linear to reuse details for similar tasks or track related work.

Instructions

Duplicate an issue

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issueId`	Yes	ID or identifier of the issue to duplicate (e.g., ABC-123)

Implementation Reference

src/tools/handlers/issue-handlers.ts:282-295 (handler)

The handler function that executes the tool logic for 'linear_duplicateIssue'. It validates the input using a type guard and calls the LinearService.duplicateIssue method.

export function handleDuplicateIssue(linearService: LinearService) {
  return async (args: unknown) => {
    try {
      if (!isDuplicateIssueArgs(args)) {
        throw new Error("Invalid arguments for duplicateIssue");
      }
      
      return await linearService.duplicateIssue(args.issueId);
    } catch (error) {
      logError("Error duplicating issue", error);
      throw error;
    }
  };
}

src/tools/definitions/issue-tools.ts:701-737 (schema)

The MCP tool definition including input and output schemas for 'linear_duplicateIssue'.

export const duplicateIssueToolDefinition: MCPToolDefinition = {
  name: "linear_duplicateIssue",
  description: "Duplicate an issue",
  input_schema: {
    type: "object",
    properties: {
      issueId: {
        type: "string",
        description: "ID or identifier of the issue to duplicate (e.g., ABC-123)",
      },
    },
    required: ["issueId"],
  },
  output_schema: {
    type: "object",
    properties: {
      success: { type: "boolean" },
      originalIssue: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          id: { type: "string" },
          identifier: { type: "string" },
          title: { type: "string" }
        }
      },
      duplicatedIssue: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          id: { type: "string" },
          identifier: { type: "string" },
          title: { type: "string" },
          url: { type: "string" }
        }
      }
    }
  }
};

src/tools/handlers/index.ts:95-95 (registration)
Registration of the 'linear_duplicateIssue' tool handler in the central tool handlers map.
```
linear_duplicateIssue: handleDuplicateIssue(linearService),
```

src/tools/type-guards.ts:368-379 (helper)

Type guard helper function used in the handler to validate arguments for 'linear_duplicateIssue'.

 * Type guard for linear_duplicateIssue tool arguments
 */
export function isDuplicateIssueArgs(args: unknown): args is {
  issueId: string;
} {
  return (
    typeof args === "object" &&
    args !== null &&
    "issueId" in args &&
    typeof (args as { issueId: string }).issueId === "string"
  );
}

src/tools/handlers/index.ts:19-19 (registration)
Import of the handleDuplicateIssue handler function used for registration.
```
handleDuplicateIssue,
```

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedDec 30, 2025

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. 'Duplicate an issue' implies a new issue is created, but it does not mention side effects, scope of duplication (e.g., attachments, comments), or permissions required. The description is insufficient for an informed choice.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely brief (2 words), which sacrifices necessary information. It is under-specified and does not earn its place as a complete description.

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 no output schema and a simple mutation, the description should explain what happens after duplication (e.g., new issue ID, copied fields). It fails to provide this context, leaving agents in the dark.

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 already provides a description for the single parameter (issueId) with an example. The tool description adds no further meaning. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3.

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 'Duplicate an issue' clearly states a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'createIssue' by indicating duplication. However, it lacks detail on what duplication entails, which could cause ambiguity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., createIssue, updateIssue). The description does not provide context for appropriate usage or when not to use it.

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