Skip to main content
Glama
tacticlaunch

Linear

by tacticlaunch
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

linear_createTeam

Create a new team in Linear by providing a name and optional settings like icon, color, privacy, and description.

Instructions

Create a new team

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyNo
iconNo
nameYesTeam name
colorNo
privateNo
parentIdNo
timezoneNo
visibilityNo
descriptionNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
keyNo
iconNo
nameNo
colorNo
parentNo
privateNo
timezoneNo
archivedAtNo
visibilityNo
descriptionNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.4.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / color / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / description / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / icon / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
  2. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.4.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / visibility
      Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "public",
+    "private"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "archivedAt": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "color": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "description": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "icon": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "key": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "parent": {
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "private": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "timezone": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "visibility": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. Addedv1.1.2

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate team names or keys, permission requirements, or any side effects. The description simply restates the action without adding behavior details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no waste. However, it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It is appropriately short but lacks structure to convey required information, so it does not earn a higher score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 9 parameters, an output schema, and no annotation hints, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not mention required fields (only name), optional settings, defaults, or expected outcomes. This level of detail is inadequate for an agent to call the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 11% (only 'name' is described in the schema). The tool description does not elaborate on any of the nine parameters, such as 'key', 'icon', 'visibility', etc. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving agents without clues about parameter meanings or constraints.

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 'Create a new team' clearly identifies the verb (create) and the resource (team). It distinguishes from sibling tools like linear_updateTeam and linear_archiveTeam. However, it lacks any elaboration on scope or specifics, so it's clear but minimal.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an organization context, or when it would be better to use team creation over updating existing teams. The description is purely declarative without usage context.

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/tacticlaunch/mcp-linear'

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