Skip to main content
Glama
wkoutre

Linear MCP Server

by wkoutre

linear_updateProject

Modify an existing Linear project by updating its name, description, or status to reflect current progress and requirements.

Instructions

Update an existing project in Linear

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID of the project to update
nameNoNew name of the project
descriptionNoNew description of the project (Markdown supported)
stateNoNew state of the project (e.g., 'planned', 'started', 'paused', 'completed', 'canceled')

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the linear_updateProject tool. It validates the input arguments using the isUpdateProjectArgs type guard and calls linearService.updateProject to perform the update.
    export function handleUpdateProject(linearService: LinearService) {
      return async (args: unknown) => {
        try {
          if (!isUpdateProjectArgs(args)) {
            throw new Error("Invalid arguments for updateProject");
          }
          
          return await linearService.updateProject(args);
        } catch (error) {
          logError("Error updating project", error);
          throw error;
        }
      };
  • MCPToolDefinition for linear_updateProject, defining input schema (requires project id, optional name/description/state) and output schema.
    export const updateProjectToolDefinition: MCPToolDefinition = {
      name: "linear_updateProject",
      description: "Update an existing project in Linear",
      input_schema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          id: {
            type: "string",
            description: "ID of the project to update",
          },
          name: {
            type: "string",
            description: "New name of the project",
          },
          description: {
            type: "string",
            description: "New description of the project (Markdown supported)",
          },
          state: {
            type: "string",
            description: "New state of the project (e.g., 'planned', 'started', 'paused', 'completed', 'canceled')",
          },
        },
        required: ["id"],
      },
      output_schema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          id: { type: "string" },
          name: { type: "string" },
          description: { type: "string" },
          state: { type: "string" },
          url: { type: "string" }
        }
      }
    };
  • Registration of the linear_updateProject handler within the registerToolHandlers function's return map, mapping it to handleUpdateProject curried with linearService.
    // Project Management tools
    linear_updateProject: handleUpdateProject(linearService),
    linear_addIssueToProject: handleAddIssueToProject(linearService),
    linear_getProjectIssues: handleGetProjectIssues(linearService),
  • Type guard function isUpdateProjectArgs that validates the input arguments match the expected shape for the linear_updateProject tool.
    export function isUpdateProjectArgs(args: unknown): args is {
      id: string;
      name?: string;
      description?: string;
      state?: string;
    } {
      return (
        typeof args === "object" &&
        args !== null &&
        "id" in args &&
        typeof (args as { id: string }).id === "string" &&
        (!("name" in args) || typeof (args as { name: string }).name === "string") &&
        (!("description" in args) || typeof (args as { description: string }).description === "string") &&
        (!("state" in args) || typeof (args as { state: string }).state === "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. 'Update an existing project' implies a mutation operation but doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates). 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 states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the essential action and resource. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format. While the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective tool invocation is incomplete.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples). This meets the baseline expectation 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 verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing project in Linear'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like linear_createProject (creation vs. update) and linear_updateIssue (different resource type). However, it doesn't specify what aspects can be updated beyond what's implied by the parameters.

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., needing an existing project ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar mutation tools like linear_updateIssue. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters 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