List pending connection invitations sent by the account that have not yet been accepted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Page size (max 100). | |
| start | No | Pagination offset, 0-based. | |
| account_id | Yes | Reach id of the LinkedIn account to act on, from list_accounts. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| total | No | ||
| invitations | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'pending and not yet accepted' filter, but does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or any account-authorization expectations beyond what the schema suggests.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'Pending' and 'not yet been accepted' are slightly redundant, but the sentence is still compact and immediately scannable.
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 simple listing behavior, rich schema, and output schema present, the description covers the core context an agent needs. It does not mention exclusions or ordering, but those are not essential for correct invocation here.
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 schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions and defaults, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the overall endpoint purpose.
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 names a specific action ('List'), a clear object ('sent invitations'), and a precise state ('not yet been accepted'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also implicitly differentiates from received or already-accepted invitation tools.
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 communicates when the tool applies: when an agent needs pending invitations sent by the account. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to use a different endpoint, but the context is clear enough for basic selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.