Add MseeP.ai badge to README

[lwsinclair]

Hi there,

This pull request shares a security update on linear-mcp-server.

We also have an entry for linear-mcp-server in our directory, MseeP.ai, where we provide regular security and trust updates on your app.

We invite you to add our badge for your MCP server to your README to help your users learn from a third party that provides ongoing validation of linear-mcp-server.

You can easily take control over your listing for free: visit it at https://mseep.ai/app/jerhadf-linear-mcp-server.

Yours Sincerely,

Lawrence W. Sinclair
CEO/SkyDeck AI
Founder of MseeP.ai
MCP servers you can trust

---

Here are our latest evaluation results of linear-mcp-server

Security Scan Results

Security Score: 100/100

Risk Level: low

Scan Date: 2025-04-29

Score starts at 100, deducts points for security issues, and adds points for security best practices

This security assessment was conducted by MseeP.ai, an independent security validation service for MCP servers. Visit our website to learn more about our security reviews.

---

Important

Add MseeP.ai security assessment badge to README.md.

• README.md:
  • Adds MseeP.ai Security Assessment Badge to the top of the file, linking to the security assessment page for linear-mcp-server.

^{This description was created by for 75a59ad. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to 75a59ad in 56 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 10 lines of code in 1 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 3 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. README.md:1

• Draft comment:
  The badge addition looks correct, but please verify if the use of 'mseep.net' for the image URL (while the link directs to 'mseep.ai') is intentional.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% This comment violates several rules. It's asking for verification rather than pointing out a clear issue. The domain difference could be intentional - many companies use different domains for assets vs web pages. Without strong evidence that this is actually wrong, we should assume the author knows what they're doing. The domain mismatch could potentially indicate a real issue if one of the domains is incorrect or if it could cause problems loading the badge. While there is a domain difference, there's no clear evidence this is actually problematic. Many companies use CDN or asset domains that differ from their main domain. Delete this comment as it's merely asking for verification without evidence of an actual problem, and domain differences between assets and web pages are common.

2. README.md:1

• Draft comment:
  MseeP.ai badge added. Please verify if the use of different domains (mseep.net for the badge image and mseep.ai for the link) is intentional and consistent with your branding.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 50% This comment violates several rules: 1) It's asking the author to verify/confirm something rather than pointing out a clear issue 2) It's speculative - there's no evidence that using different domains is actually a problem 3) It's not suggesting any clear code change 4) For all we know, this could be the standard way MseeP.ai provides their badges Maybe inconsistent domains could indicate a security issue or broken badge. Maybe this deserves investigation. Without clear evidence that this is actually problematic, asking for verification just creates unnecessary work. If the badge works, it works. Delete this comment as it's asking for verification without evidence of an actual problem and doesn't suggest any clear code changes.

3. README.md:51

• Draft comment:
  Typographical issue: In the description for the linear_create_issue tool (line 51), the phrase 'Create a new Linear issues' should likely be 'Create a new Linear issue' to read clearly.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment was not on a location in the diff, so it can't be submitted as a review comment.

Workflow ID: wflow_BBAm8RgPzDXjYzkv

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}