Linked API MCP

create_post

Create a LinkedIn post with text up to 3000 characters, optionally on a company page, and attach up to 9 images, 1 video, or 1 document.

Instructions

Creates a new LinkedIn post with optional media attachments (st.createPost action).

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "create_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	Post content, must be up to 3000 characters.
`companyUrl`	No	LinkedIn company page URL. If specified, the post will be created on the company page (requires admin access).
`attachments`	No	Media attachments for the post. You can add up to 9 images, or 1 video, or 1 document. Cannot mix different attachment types.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.0Jan 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds constraints on media attachments (up to 9 images, 1 video/documents, no mixing) beyond the schema, but omits details on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or failure modes.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (mutation, optional companies, media constraints) and absence of output schema or annotations, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. Missing aspects include return values, error handling, and company page admin requirements.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds little beyond stating 'optional media attachments', not expanding on parameter details or usage nuances. 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 specifies the verb 'creates' and the resource 'LinkedIn post', clearly differentiating from sibling tools like comment_on_post or fetch_post. It also mentions optional media attachments and the action identifier, providing a precise purpose.

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 usage for creating posts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use company vs personal posts, prerequisites like admin access). No guidance on exclusions or trade-offs is provided.

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