Check whether your LinkedIn account is connected and portability authorization is valid. Returns an explicit connected, disconnected, or unconfigured status without exposing credentials.
Verify the configured LinkedIn account and portability authorization. Reports disconnected or unconfigured access explicitly; never returns credentials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: that disconnected/unconfigured states are reported explicitly and that credentials are never exposed, which is security-relevant information annotations cannot convey.
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 short sentences with the core verification purpose front-loaded and zero filler. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise lack.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient. The only mild gap is not enumerating the possible status outcomes or indicating whether the result should gate subsequent LinkedIn calls.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing about arguments the description could or should explain.
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 ('Verify') and a specific resource (configured LinkedIn account and portability authorization). It is distinguishable from sibling copilot_get_status, which covers a different subsystem, though the description never explicitly names that sibling.
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 only implied — an agent can infer this is a pre-flight connectivity check before LinkedIn operations. There is no explicit statement of when to call it versus copilot_get_status or what to do with a disconnected result.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.