linkedin-mcp

reshare_post

Reshare a LinkedIn post by providing its URN or URL and add your own commentary to engage your network.

Instructions

Reshare an existing post (by URN or URL) with your own commentary.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "post": "<post>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "reshare_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`post`	Yes	Post URN or URL to reshare.
`text`	Yes	Your commentary.
`visibility`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.4Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits such as permissions required, visibility effects, notifications, or return value. This is minimal.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. It is concise without being terse, though additional context could be added without making it verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks information about return format, error cases, permissions, and behavioral details, making it incomplete for effective agent use.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 67%. The description clarifies the 'post' parameter by specifying it can be a URN or URL, adding value beyond the schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on 'text' or 'visibility', leaving gaps that the schema partially covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the action (reshare), the resource (existing post), and the method (by URN or URL, with commentary). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_post, comment_on_post, and react_to_post.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use the tool (to reshare with commentary), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparison to alternatives. No exclusion criteria or context of typical use cases.

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

Deploy Server