get_company_postsFetch posts published on a LinkedIn company page, with text, media, engagement counts and timestamps.
Costs 10 credits per call. Paginated by cursor — pass the cursor from the previous response for the next page, and expect to be charged again for it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| type | No | ||
| cursor | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important operational behavior: a 10-credit cost per call, cursor-based pagination, and the fact that fetching the next page incurs another charge. These are material details an agent would not know from annotations alone.
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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, then cost, then pagination behavior. Every sentence adds useful information without 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?
Given the output schema and annotations already cover return shape and safety profile, the description does enough by explaining cost and pagination. The main remaining gap is the unexplained 'type' parameter.
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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the cursor parameter well and implies that the URL is a company-page URL, but it does not explain the 'type' parameter or its enum values (all/articles/documents).
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 uses a specific verb and resource: fetch posts published on a LinkedIn company page. It clearly distinguishes this from a single-post or profile tool by scoping the resource to company-page posts, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.
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 intended use is implied by 'LinkedIn company page,' and pagination guidance is given for cursor usage. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like get_post, get_post_engagement, or get_company_profile.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.