LinkedIn MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, potentially destructive operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond content types, and does not disclose side effects like publishing publicly or required permissions. With annotations present, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral detail.

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?

The description is a single sentence and moderately concise. It does repeat 'Share on LinkedIn' and 'Create a new share post on LinkedIn', creating slight redundancy, but overall it is efficient and front-loaded.

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's complexity (nested objects, no output schema, low param coverage), the description is insufficient. It does not mention required fields, enum values, or the workflow for using specificContent, making it incomplete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 description coverage is 0% per context signals, and the description only vaguely references 'text, URLs, and images' without explaining the structured parameters (author, visibility, lifecycleState, specificContent). The description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 'Create' and the resource 'a new share post on LinkedIn', with additional detail about content types (text, URLs, images). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like getSharePosts and getPersonProfile, which are read-only.

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?

The description makes it evident that the tool is for creating share posts, providing clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, falling short of the 'explicit when/when-not' standard.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which covers the safety profile. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations—no mention of what data is returned, any rate limits, authentication needs, or edge cases. It simply restates that it gets profile information.

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?

The description is extremely short and mostly redundant: 'Get person profile' repeats the title, and the rest 'Get basic profile information for a person' adds little new meaning. The structure is not front-loaded with useful differentiating information; it is simply verbose repetition.

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?

With no output schema and an ambiguous target ('a person' – which person? the current user? a specified ID?), the description is not complete enough for an agent to know exactly what data it will receive. It is a very simple tool, but the lack of clarification about which profile is fetched and what 'basic' includes leaves gaps.

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, and the schema coverage is 100% since the schema has no properties. The baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to describe, and the description does not need to explain parameter details.

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 'person profile', and distinguishes it from sibling tools like getSharePosts by indicating it retrieves profile information, not posts. However, the phrase 'basic profile information' is somewhat vague about what fields are included.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the siblings (createSharePost, getSharePosts). The context is implied – if you want a person's profile, use this – but there are no clear alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds the scope (user/org) but offers no other behavioral context like pagination, filtering, or return format.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded, but it redundantly repeats the title ('Get share posts -') followed by a restatement with added scope. Still, it is efficient and to the point.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and scope, and annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema and no parameter explanations, it is only minimally viable. Missing pagination details and return value structure.

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?

The input schema has three parameters with no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description provides zero information about count, start, or authors. The agent has no way to know the semantics of these parameters from the description or 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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('share posts'), and adds scope ('for the authenticated user or organization'). It naturally differentiates from siblings like createSharePost (write) and getPersonProfile (different resource).

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool (when needing share posts for the authenticated user or organization) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The context is sufficient for basic selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.