Skip to content
Menu

MCP server / project management / source-linked

Linear MCP

Linear MCP is best understood as an interface to tracked engineering work. A useful initial decision is whether the agent needs to change issues or only investigate them. The dedicated read-only endpoint provides a concrete starting boundary for triage and status reporting.

Before you choose.

Identify the implementation and the job it supports.

Which implementation is this?
Linear's official remote service; Streamable HTTP is primary and the SSE endpoint is a deprecated fallback.
Implementation source ↗

Linear MCP is best understood as an interface to tracked engineering work. A useful initial decision is whether the agent needs to change issues or only investigate them. The dedicated read-only endpoint provides a concrete starting boundary for triage and status reporting.

Setup and connection.

The documented interface, authentication and installation path.

Connection / transport
Streamable HTTP
Authentication
OAuth 2.1 with dynamic registration; bearer-token or API-key authentication also documented

For analysis, connect to https://mcp.linear.app/mcp/readonly. Use /mcp only when writes are needed, then authorize the correct workspace and inspect exposed tools.

Setup reference ↗

What it actually exposes.

Concrete capabilities with maintainer sources.

Documented capability / 01

Inspect issues

Retrieve Linear work context for triage and status questions.

Documentation ↗
Documented capability / 02

Structure a project

Create a project, issues and milestones from an approved planning document.

Documentation ↗
Documented capability / 03

Restrict tool access

The /mcp/readonly endpoint exposes read tools; the standard endpoint can also use a read-only OAuth scope.

Documentation ↗

Evidence and method.

What was checked and what was not tested.

WHO

Editorial record

Compiled by clawbot.ai.

HOW

Source method

Public maintainer documentation and repositories. This is not a hands-on product review.

WHEN

Last checked 2026-10-01

Setup examples are documented examples. Suggested trials and comparison advice are editorial guidance.

Sources support the adjacent factual statements. A source review does not establish uptime, performance, security or current account eligibility. Read the editorial policy.

Community signals.

Concrete reports from public community discussions, kept separate from product documentation.

GitHub issue linear/linear / Directory records need endpoint freshness checks and a last-checked date / negative / maintainer_issue2026-07-28 · siliroid

MCP registry entry points at /sse, which 404s; live endpoint is /mcp #1223

The report shows that stale registry metadata can block discovery even when the live Linear endpoint works at /mcp.

“Registry discovery followed the stale /sse URL, received 404, and concluded Linear's MCP server did not exist.”
Open community source ↗
GitHub issue anthropics/claude-code / Remote OAuth setup needs client-specific redirect and registration testing / negative / maintainer_issue_with_reproduction2026-04-13 · m-tse

Linear MCP OAuth fails with Invalid client #47185

The report identifies a client-side OAuth registration edge case for Linear's HTTP MCP endpoint on macOS.

“Linear's OAuth flow failed with Invalid client when metadata client IDs met ephemeral loopback ports.”
Open community source ↗

Community evidence is anecdotal and may reflect one setup, version or account. It is included for discovery and risk-sensing, not as a representative rating or independent benchmark. Verify the current official documentation before acting on a report.

Try a specific task.

A bounded evaluation you can reproduce in your own environment.

Proposed workflow: turn a brief into a triage plan

Suggested evaluation, not an observed test result.

  1. Read existing issues to avoid duplicate work.
  2. Draft new issue descriptions and identify missing owners or requirements.
  3. Review the proposed list, then authorize creation in the intended project.

What to inspect: A reviewable issue plan grounded in existing work. No creation or accuracy test was performed here.

Workflow reference ↗

Permissions and limitations.

Read these constraints before granting access.

Boundary / 01

The normal /mcp endpoint grants read-write access by default. Select the read-only route deliberately.

Boundary reference ↗
Boundary / 02

Editorial inference: missing dates or ownership in a planning document should remain unresolved questions, not invented issue fields.

Boundary reference ↗

Decide by workflow.

Make the expected output explicit before you connect.

A reviewable issue plan grounded in existing work. No creation or accuracy test was performed here.

Keep the task inputs, tool calls, output and any errors together when you evaluate. The trial above is a proposal, not a recorded result.

Compare the alternatives.

Specific reasons to choose another route, with the tradeoff shown.

Editorial decision guidance inferred from the linked documentation; no quality or speed benchmark.
AlternativeChoose it whenTradeoff
Asana MCPEditorial choice: coordinate cross-functional portfolios and tasks.Use Asana's work model and OAuth client requirements.
Documentation ↗
Atlassian Rovo MCPEditorial choice: requirements live across Jira and Confluence.Broader Atlassian context with its own access controls.
Documentation ↗

Questions before setup.

Answers specific to this implementation.

Can I keep the connection read-only?

Yes. Use /mcp/readonly or a suitably restricted token.
Documentation ↗

Should a new setup use /sse?

No. Linear recommends Streamable HTTP at /mcp for new connections.
Documentation ↗