Skip to main content
Glama

linear_updateTeamMembership

Idempotent

Update a team member's role or sort order by providing the membership ID and the desired field values.

Instructions

Update a user's role in a team. Provide id plus at least one other field to change.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID of the team membership to update
ownerNo
sortOrderNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNo
teamNo
userNo
ownerNo
createdAtNo
sortOrderNo
updatedAtNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / sortOrder / type
      Previous value: -"number"New value: +[
      +  "number",
      +  "null"
      +]
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.1
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "properties": {
      +    "createdAt": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "id": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "owner": {
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "sortOrder": {
      +      "type": [
      +        "number",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "team": {
      +      "type": [
      +        "object",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    },
      +    "updatedAt": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "user": {
      +      "type": [
      +        "object",
      +        "null"
      +      ]
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  3. Addedv1.1.2

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds a validation expectation about providing another field, but does not describe error behavior or partial-update semantics.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action and the key calling constraint without any extra words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is low-complexity, has an output schema, and annotations cover the safety profile. The main gap is the missing explanation of owner/sortOrder semantics and lack of routing against add/remove alternatives, making it barely adequate.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Only the id parameter has a schema description (33% coverage). The description does not explain what 'owner' or 'sortOrder' mean or how 'role' maps to these fields, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Update a user's role in a team.' This distinguishes it from sibling add/remove membership tools, though 'role' is slightly vague because the actual mutable fields are owner and sortOrder.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides an operational constraint: 'Provide id plus at least one other field to change,' which tells the agent not to call with only an id. However, it does not mention when to prefer this over linear_addUserToTeam or linear_removeUserFromTeam.

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