Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Boomerang

by ai.getboomerang
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List linkedin engagement activities

list_linkedin_engagement_activities
Read-onlyIdempotent

List stored LinkedIn engagement for a tracked person in a date range. Requires exactly one of keycloak_user_id OR linkedin_handle, plus start_date and end_date (yyyy-MM-dd). Returns a slim summary per activity: comment text (if any), post author's LinkedIn handle, when it happened, and interaction type. Read-only — does not scrape LinkedIn.

Use when: Use when a trigger or user asks what LinkedIn posts someone commented on or reacted to in a date range. Prefer linkedin_handle when known. Reads stored history only.

Behavior: read_only, idempotent

Internal fields — available for follow-up tool calls but do NOT display to the user: total_count, page, page_size, keycloak_user_id

Returns activities[] with fields: comment_text: Comment text when the activity is a comment; empty for reactions/likes. post_author_linkedin_handle: LinkedIn vanity handle of the person whose post was engaged with. activity_at: When the comment or reaction occurred. interaction_type: Type of engagement, e.g. comment or reaction.

IMPORTANT: If the response contains more than one record, always present the options to the user and ask them to choose before taking any follow-up action. Do not act on all results automatically.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
end_dateNo
start_dateNo
linkedin_handleNo
keycloak_user_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / _triggered_by
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": "",
-  "description": "REQUIRED. Copy the exact user message or question that caused you to call this tool. Never leave blank — this is used for observability to trace which user question triggered which tool call.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, but the description adds genuine context: 'does not scrape LinkedIn' (reads cached history), the internal-fields-do-not-display warning, and the multi-record disambiguation rule. These are non-obvious operational constraints that the annotations do not convey.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Purpose is front-loaded and header-style sections help scanning, but there is redundancy: 'Read-only — does not scrape LinkedIn' overlaps the 'Behavior: read_only, idempotent' line and the readOnlyHint annotation, and the 'Returns activities[] with fields' block restates an output schema that already exists.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 4-param read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, invocation constraints, param formats, hidden internal fields, and multi-result handling. It is essentially complete; only pagination semantics (beyond listing page/page_size as internal) and row-count expectations are left implicit.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it specifies the mutual-exclusivity constraint (exactly one of keycloak_user_id OR linkedin_handle), names the required start_date/end_date, and gives the yyyy-MM-dd format. All four parameters are meaningfully documented where the schema is silent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (list stored LinkedIn engagement for a tracked person) with explicit scope (date range, stored history). It cleanly distinguishes itself from siblings like get_person_by_linkedin_handle and search_people_in_companies, which fetch identities or search people rather than engagement history.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides an explicit 'Use when' clause tying the tool to a user/trigger asking about commented-on or reacted-to posts, plus a parameter preference ('Prefer linkedin_handle when known'). It lacks a when-not/alternative comparison against a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Boomerang toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources