unscheduleUnschedule a scheduled LinkedIn post, returning it to drafts so you can edit, reschedule, or delete it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The id of the scheduled post to unschedule (from list_posts). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| media | No | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| created_at | Yes | ||
| updated_at | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / updated_atAdded value: +{
+ "$ref": "#/properties/created_at"
+}Output schema / properties / media / items / properties / titleAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Document title shown on LinkedIn. Only set for documents.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value by disclosing the state transition to drafts and the non-destructive, recoverable nature of the outcome; it does not cover auth requirements or error cases such as unscheduling a post that isn't scheduled.
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?
One sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and ending with the practical outcome. Every clause earns its place.
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 tool is simple (one required param, output schema present), and the description covers action, outcome, and follow-up options. Only edge-case behavior — what happens if the post is not currently scheduled, or idempotent repeat behavior — is left unstated.
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 100% and the single `id` parameter is already documented, including its origin ('from list_posts'). The description adds no further meaning about the identifier, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters applies.
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 verb and resource ('Unschedule a scheduled LinkedIn post') and states the resulting state ('returning it to drafts'), which distinguishes it from schedule_draft, publish_draft, and delete_draft without opening any schema.
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 gives clear context for use: a post that is currently scheduled. The consequence sentence ('so you can edit, reschedule, or delete it') implicitly routes the agent away from delete_draft and toward this tool when the goal is reversible, but no sibling is named explicitly and no when-not-to-use condition is stated.
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.