Archive a Linear issue using its ID or identifier (e.g., ABC-123) to remove it from active project views.
Archive an issue
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issueId | Yes | ID or identifier of the issue to archive (e.g., ABC-123) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | 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": {
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. While annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or irreversibility.
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?
The description is extremely concise at three words, with no fluff. It is front-loaded but would benefit from a bit more detail without becoming verbose.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral details that would make it fully self-contained.
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 is 100% with one parameter well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Archive an issue' clearly states the verb (archive) and the resource (issue), which is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools that archive different entities like projects or milestones.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., deleting an issue, or other archive tools). The description only states the action without context for appropriate usage.
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