linear_add_comment⚠️ WRITE / MUTATING: posts a comment on an issue. Requires the issueId (UUID) and a markdown body. GraphQL: mutation commentCreate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | Comment text in markdown. | |
| issueId | Yes | UUID of the issue to comment on (the `id` field, not the ENG-123 identifier). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations; description labels it as WRITE/MUTATING but does not disclose side effects, response format, or any constraints beyond required params.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with warning, no fluff. Efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Minimal but covers key points for a simple 2-param tool. Missing return value info, but acceptable given simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage 100%, description adds clarity: issueId is UUID (not display ID), body is markdown. Adds value beyond schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it posts a comment on an issue, uses specific verb+resource. Distinguishes from siblings which are about creating issues, listing, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage: use when you need to add a comment to an issue. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: adding comments, creating issues, fetching by ID, listing cycles/projects/teams, viewing assigned issues, and searching. No ambiguity between them.
All tools follow a 'linear_' prefix with verb_noun pattern (e.g., linear_create_issue, linear_list_teams). The exception is 'linear_my_issues' which is not strictly verb_noun but still intuitive.
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for a project management integration. It covers core operations without being overwhelming or sparse.
Covers basic CRUD for issues (create, get, comment) and listing of projects/cycles/teams, but missing update_issue and delete_issue, which are notable gaps for a complete workflow.