Retrieve active integrations from Linear, with options to limit results, order by created or updated date, and include archived entries.
Get a list of active integrations
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| orderBy | No | ||
| includeArchived | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.4.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "items": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "archivedAt": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "createdAt": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "creator": {
+ "type": [
+ "object",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "service": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "team": {
+ "type": [
+ "object",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "updatedAt": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "items"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v1.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as default ordering, pagination behavior, or what constitutes 'active' versus archived. It does not explain the effect of the includeArchived parameter.
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 (7 words, one sentence). It is efficient but omits important parameter details that could be briefly noted.
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, return format details are covered elsewhere. However, with 3 undocumented optional parameters and no explanation of defaults or behavior (e.g., does includeArchived override 'active'?), the description is incomplete for effective use.
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?
The input schema has 3 parameters (limit, orderBy, includeArchived) with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter semantics, leaving agents to guess their purpose and valid values.
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 'Get' and the resource 'list of active integrations', making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. No sibling tools overlap with this specific function.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it indicate prerequisites or context. Agents receive no help in choosing this tool over others like linear_getIntegrationsById (if it existed).
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