linkedin_get_company_postsGet a company's recent LinkedIn posts by company URL, slug, or numeric ID. Returns up to ~30 posts with text, engagement counts, and post URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | Continuation cursor from a previous call. Pass this to fetch the next batch of posts. | |
| identifier | Yes | LinkedIn company URL (e.g. https://www.linkedin.com/company/acme), company slug (e.g. "acme"), or numeric ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the approximate result volume (~30 posts) and the returned fields (text, engagement counts, post URL), which help the agent decide whether this tool fits.
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?
Two compact sentences, with the core action and identifier forms front-loaded and the return shape following. No filler.
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?
For a read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and how much, and pagination is handled by the schema's cursor parameter. Only minor gaps remain, such as ordering or freshness of 'recent' posts.
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%, so both parameters (identifier and cursor) are already documented in the schema, including the identifier formats the description repeats. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what structured data provides.
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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a company's recent LinkedIn posts) with the accepted identifier forms. It is distinguishable from siblings like linkedin_get_person_posts and linkedin_get_company without opening either 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?
Usage is implied by the resource scope (company posts, not person posts or company profile), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative such as linkedin_get_company or linkedin_bulk_get_companies.
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.