Retrieve a specific project milestone's details from Linear by providing its ID.
Get details of a specific project milestone by ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the milestone to retrieve |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| progress | No | ||
| createdAt | No | ||
| sortOrder | No | ||
| updatedAt | No | ||
| archivedAt | No | ||
| targetDate | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.4.2Output schema / properties / progress / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +[
+ "number",
+ "null"
+]Output schema / properties / sortOrder / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +[
+ "number",
+ "null"
+]v1.4.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "archivedAt": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "createdAt": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "description": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "progress": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "project": {
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": [
+ "object",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "sortOrder": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "targetDate": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "updatedAt": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}v1.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond saying it 'gets details', such as access requirements or response behavior, but it does not contradict 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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place: it identifies the action, the resource, and the required input.
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, single-parameter read tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description is complete. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing; the output schema covers return values and the annotations cover safety semantics.
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 schema already describes the single 'id' parameter with 100% coverage. The description's 'by ID' adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Get details'), a clear resource ('specific project milestone'), and the lookup mechanism ('by ID'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like linear_getMilestones (list all) and linear_updateMilestone/linear_archiveMilestone (mutations).
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 implies this tool is for retrieving a single milestone by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over linear_getMilestones or mention any exclusions. Usage context is left to inference from the tool name and sibling list.
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