Remove a project from an initiative by specifying both the initiative ID and project ID in Linear.
Remove a project from an initiative
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | The ID of the project to remove | |
| initiativeId | Yes | The ID of the initiative |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | No | ||
| project | No | ||
| success | No | ||
| initiative | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.4.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "initiative": {
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "project": {
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description merely restates the action without explaining side effects (e.g., what happens if the project isn't in the initiative).
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?
Single sentence, no unnecessary words. Efficiently communicates the core action.
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 two-parameter removal operation with an output schema, this description is adequate. However, it lacks detail on prerequisites or error conditions.
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?
Schema covers both parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
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 'Remove' and the resources 'project from an initiative', distinguishing it from the sibling 'linear_addProjectToInitiative'.
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 (e.g., archiving a project). The context of removing from an initiative is implied but not elaborated.
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