Lists organizations or opportunities from LinkedIn channel memory with bounded pagination, so you can review relationship records without treating them as authoritative pipeline.
List LinkedIn channel-memory business organizations or opportunities with bounded pagination; these are not the authoritative company pipeline.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context that annotations do not: the data is derived from channel memory, it is not authoritative, and results are paginated in a bounded way, which warns the agent against treating it as a complete dataset.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the scope, pagination, and provenance caveat all appear immediately. It is slightly dense, packing three clauses into a semicolon-joined sentence, but nothing is 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?
There is no output schema, and the description never hints at what an entity looks like or what fields come back, nor does it document the two enum values. Safety behavior is adequately covered by annotations, so this is adequate but with clear gaps for a paginated listing tool with an undocumented enum.
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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'bounded pagination' but never explains what limit bounds, what offset means, or what 'organization' vs 'opportunity' selects for the required 'kind' enum. The agent must guess at page-size ceilings and whether offset is a row count or page index.
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 states a clear verb and resource: list LinkedIn channel-memory organizations or opportunities. It also distinguishes this data from the authoritative company pipeline, which separates it from sibling tools such as crm_search_people and crm_upsert_entity. It does not name an alternative, so it earns 4 rather than 5.
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 caveat 'these are not the authoritative company pipeline' implies this is a secondary, derived source. However, it does not say when to prefer it or which sibling to use for authoritative pipeline data, leaving the agent to infer that from 25 sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.