Linear

linear_createSavedView

Create a Linear saved view to filter and organize issues by custom criteria, sharing it with your team or keeping it personal.

Instructions

Create a Linear saved view (API: createCustomView)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`icon`	No	Icon for the saved view
`name`	Yes	Saved view name
`color`	No	Icon color for the saved view
`shared`	No	Whether the saved view is shared across the organization
`teamId`	No	Optional team associated with the saved view
`filters`	No	Raw filters object to store on the saved view
`ownerId`	No	Optional owner for the saved view
`projectId`	No	Optional project associated with the saved view
`filterData`	No	Issue filter data for the saved view
`description`	No	Saved view description
`projectFilterData`	No	Project filter data for the saved view

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`icon`	No
`name`	No
`team`	No
`color`	No
`owner`	No
`shared`	No
`slugId`	No
`creator`	No
`filters`	No
`createdAt`	No
`updatedAt`	No
`filterData`	No
`description`	No
`projectFilterData`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.4.2Aug 27, 2026
- changedOutput schema / properties / creator / properties / email / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- changedOutput schema / properties / owner / properties / email / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```

Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.1Jul 30, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "color": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "createdAt": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "creator": {
+      "properties": {
+        "email": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "name": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "description": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "filterData": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "filters": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "icon": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "owner": {
+      "properties": {
+        "email": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "name": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "projectFilterData": {
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "shared": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "slugId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "team": {
+      "properties": {
+        "id": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "name": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "updatedAt": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Addedv1.1.2May 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not disclose what happens on creation, any side effects, permission requirements, or whether name collisions are handled. Since annotations cover the basic safety profile, the description contributes nothing extra, making this a minimal score.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, making it immediately clear. For its brevity, it is perfectly concise and structured.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters, including nested objects and an output schema, yet the description is only a one-liner. It does not explain what a saved view is, how to structure filters, or which parameters are essential beyond the required 'name'. Annotations provide no additional context. This is inadequate for a tool with this complexity.

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 all 11 parameters have descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema already documents each field. While some schema descriptions are vague (e.g., 'Raw filters object'), the coverage is complete, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not enhance the schema's meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Create a Linear saved view' with a specific verb and resource, and the API reference 'createCustomView' adds specificity. It differentiates from siblings like linear_updateSavedView, linear_deleteSavedView, and linear_getSavedViews by the action 'create'. The purpose is unambiguous and distinguishes this tool from its close relatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or conditions that would make this the correct choice. It simply states the action without context, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/tacticlaunch/mcp-linear'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server