Retrieve details about your Linear organization, including name and settings, to understand your workspace context.
Get information about the current Linear organization
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| urlKey | No | ||
| logoUrl | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.4.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "logoUrl": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "urlKey": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) and adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating it gets information. Since annotations already cover safety and idempotency, the description does not need to elaborate further.
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?
A single sentence that is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.
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 tool has no parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the minimal description is adequate. However, it could briefly mention what kind of information (e.g., name, domain, settings) to improve completeness.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the description has no burden to explain them. The schema coverage is 100%, and the description correctly implies no inputs are needed.
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 ('information about the current Linear organization'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like linear_getViewer or linear_getUsers by specifying the organization scope.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is self-explanatory from the name and description. An implied usage context exists, but no explicit 'when not to use' or alternative references.
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