Skip to main content
Glama
wkoutre

Linear MCP Server

by wkoutre

linear_getIssueHistory

Retrieve the change history for a Linear issue to track modifications, understand updates, and monitor progress over time.

Instructions

Get the history of changes made to an issue

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issueIdYesID or identifier of the issue (e.g., ABC-123)
limitNoMaximum number of history events to return (default: 10)

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that implements the core logic for the linear_getIssueHistory tool. It validates the input arguments using the type guard and delegates to the LinearService to fetch the issue history.
    export function handleGetIssueHistory(linearService: LinearService) {
      return async (args: unknown) => {
        try {
          if (!isGetIssueHistoryArgs(args)) {
            throw new Error("Invalid arguments for getIssueHistory");
          }
          
          return await linearService.getIssueHistory(args.issueId, args.limit);
        } catch (error) {
          logError("Error getting issue history", error);
          throw error;
        }
      };
    }
  • Defines the tool schema including name, description, input_schema (issueId required, limit optional), and output_schema for the issue history.
    export const getIssueHistoryToolDefinition: MCPToolDefinition = {
      name: "linear_getIssueHistory",
      description: "Get the history of changes made to an issue",
      input_schema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          issueId: {
            type: "string",
            description: "ID or identifier of the issue (e.g., ABC-123)",
          },
          limit: {
            type: "number",
            description: "Maximum number of history events to return (default: 10)",
          },
        },
        required: ["issueId"],
      },
      output_schema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          issueId: { type: "string" },
          identifier: { type: "string" },
          history: {
            type: "array",
            items: {
              type: "object",
              properties: {
                id: { type: "string" },
                createdAt: { type: "string" },
                actor: { type: "object" },
                type: { type: "string" },
                from: { type: "string" },
                to: { type: "string" }
              }
            }
          }
        }
      }
    };
  • Registers the 'linear_getIssueHistory' tool name mapped to the handleGetIssueHistory handler function within the tool handlers registry.
    linear_getIssueHistory: handleGetIssueHistory(linearService),
  • Type guard function used in the handler to validate input arguments match the expected schema for issueId (required string) and optional limit (number).
    export function isGetIssueHistoryArgs(args: unknown): args is {
      issueId: string;
      limit?: number;
    } {
      return (
        typeof args === "object" &&
        args !== null &&
        "issueId" in args &&
        typeof (args as { issueId: string }).issueId === "string" &&
        (!("limit" in args) || typeof (args as { limit: number }).limit === "number")
      );
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't confirm this explicitly or address other behavioral aspects. There's no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination (beyond the limit parameter), error conditions, or what the return format looks like (since there's no output schema). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information ('Get the history of changes made to an issue'), making it easy to parse. There's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity (retrieving historical data with parameters), lack of annotations, and absence of an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'history' includes (e.g., field changes, comments, attachments), how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely returns structured historical data, more context is needed to help an agent use it effectively, especially without annotations or output schema to fill in the gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (issueId and limit) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema—it doesn't explain the format of issueId beyond 'ID or identifier' or clarify what 'history events' consist of. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('history of changes made to an issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like linear_getIssueById (which retrieves current state) and linear_getComments (which retrieves comments rather than change history). However, it doesn't specify the exact scope of 'history' (e.g., whether it includes comments, status changes, or all modifications), which prevents a perfect score.

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 when this tool is appropriate (e.g., for auditing changes) versus when to use linear_getIssueById (for current state) or linear_getComments (for comment history). There's also no mention of prerequisites, such as needing the issue ID first from another tool. The usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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