Archives a Linear document by its ID, moving it to trash to remove it from active use while retaining access for recovery.
Archive (trash) a Linear document
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the document to archive |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| success | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.4.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}v1.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description uses 'Archive (trash)' which aligns with destructive behavior but does not elaborate on reversibility or side effects. It adds minimal value beyond the annotations.
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?
A single, concise sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words or structure.
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?
For a simple archive operation with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. However, it lacks context about what happens to the document after archiving or how to reverse it, but the presence of an output schema mitigates this need somewhat.
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?
Only one parameter 'id' with schema coverage 100%. The description merely repeats the schema's parameter description ('ID of the document to archive'), adding no additional meaning. Baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Archive (trash)' and the resource 'a Linear document', which distinguishes it from sibling archive tools for other resources like roadmap, milestone, project, 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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to archive vs delete or unarchive. The description only states the action without context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tacticlaunch/mcp-linear'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server