linkedin-agent-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List prepared actions

linkedin_list_actions

Read-onlyIdempotent

List recent prepared LinkedIn actions and their local states, optionally filtered by status, without changing LinkedIn state.

Instructions

[READ - no LinkedIn state is changed] Lists recent prepared actions and their states (local state only), optionally filtered by status.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "linkedin_list_actions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`status`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`actions`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered and the '[READ - no LinkedIn state is changed]' prefix largely repeats it. The genuinely additive detail is '(local state only)', which tells the agent these are staged local records rather than live LinkedIn data — a meaningful behavioral clarification.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with the read-only constraint first and the filter optionality last; every clause adds information and nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers scope, safety, and filtering adequately. It could note ordering or the default page size implied by 'recent', but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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 0% for 2 parameters, and the description only restates the status filter without explaining its enum values or the meaning/default of 'limit' (max 50). Baseline 3 is warranted since the enum carries the filter values but limit stays fully undocumented in prose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists recent prepared actions and their states') and scopes it as local-only, which distinguishes it from the single-record linkedin_get_action. It never names a sibling explicitly, so differentiation still relies on the reader inferring from the plural 'actions'.

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?

'Optionally filtered by status' implies when to narrow results, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing or routing against alternatives such as linkedin_get_action for a single action. Usage must be inferred.

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