Skip to main content
Glama
wkoutre

Linear MCP Server

by wkoutre

linear_getIssueById

Retrieve a specific issue from Linear project management using its ID or identifier (like ABC-123) to access details and manage tasks.

Instructions

Get a specific issue by ID or identifier (e.g., ABC-123)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe ID or identifier of the issue (e.g., ABC-123)

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function that implements the linear_getIssueById tool logic. It validates the input arguments using the isGetIssueByIdArgs type guard and delegates to LinearService.getIssueById to fetch and return the specific issue.
    export function handleGetIssueById(linearService: LinearService) {
      return async (args: unknown) => {
        try {
          if (!isGetIssueByIdArgs(args)) {
            throw new Error("Invalid arguments for getIssueById");
          }
          
          return await linearService.getIssueById(args.id);
        } catch (error) {
          logError("Error getting issue by ID", error);
          throw error;
        }
      };
    }
  • Defines the MCP tool schema for linear_getIssueById, specifying input (id: string required) and comprehensive output schema for issue details.
    export const getIssueByIdToolDefinition: MCPToolDefinition = {
      name: "linear_getIssueById",
      description: "Get a specific issue by ID or identifier (e.g., ABC-123)",
      input_schema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          id: {
            type: "string",
            description: "The ID or identifier of the issue (e.g., ABC-123)",
          },
        },
        required: ["id"],
      },
      output_schema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          id: { type: "string" },
          identifier: { type: "string" },
          title: { type: "string" },
          description: { type: "string" },
          state: { type: "string" },
          priority: { type: "number" },
          estimate: { type: "number" },
          dueDate: { type: "string" },
          team: { type: "object" },
          assignee: { type: "object" },
          project: { type: "object" },
          cycle: { type: "object" },
          parent: { type: "object" },
          labels: { 
            type: "array",
            items: {
              type: "object",
              properties: {
                id: { type: "string" },
                name: { type: "string" },
                color: { type: "string" }
              }
            }
          },
          sortOrder: { type: "number" },
          createdAt: { type: "string" },
          updatedAt: { type: "string" },
          url: { type: "string" },
          comments: { type: "array" }
        }
      }
    };
  • Registers the tool name 'linear_getIssueById' to the handleGetIssueById handler function (curried with LinearService instance) within the registerToolHandlers export.
    linear_getIssueById: handleGetIssueById(linearService),
  • Type guard utility function used by the handler to validate and type-narrow the tool's input arguments to ensure 'id' is a string.
    export function isGetIssueByIdArgs(args: unknown): args is { id: string } {
      return (
        typeof args === "object" &&
        args !== null &&
        "id" in args &&
        typeof (args as { id: string }).id === "string"
      );
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get[s] a specific issue', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID doesn't exist), authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: 'Get a specific issue by ID or identifier (e.g., ABC-123)'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a helpful example. There's no wasted text, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for its simple function.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks completeness in areas like usage guidelines, behavioral context (e.g., error handling), and output details. For a simple read operation, it's functional but could be more informative to fully guide an agent.

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 the 'id' parameter documented as 'The ID or identifier of the issue (e.g., ABC-123)'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only repeating the example 'ABC-123' without providing additional semantics like format constraints or where to find IDs. 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 tool's purpose: 'Get a specific issue by ID or identifier (e.g., ABC-123)'. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('issue'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like linear_getIssues (which likely lists multiple issues) or linear_searchIssues (which likely searches with criteria). The description is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 sibling tools like linear_getIssues (for listing issues) or linear_searchIssues (for searching issues), nor does it specify use cases such as retrieving a single known issue versus browsing multiple issues. There's no explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations.

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