linkedin_logout

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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable context by specifying the deletion is local only and scoped to this MCP server. This clarifies that the action is not a full LinkedIn account logout or server-side token revocation, which is useful beyond what annotations provide.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that names the action and target resource without any filler. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a no-parameter, destructive-but-local operation with annotations already covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. The main omission is what happens if no token exists (e.g., idempotency or error behavior), but this is minor for such a simple tool.

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?

With zero parameters, there is no schema burden to compensate for. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description accurately reflects that no inputs are needed.

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 specific action (delete) and a specific resource (the locally stored LinkedIn OAuth token for this MCP server). This clearly distinguishes the tool from its OAuth-flow siblings and leaves no ambiguity about its function.

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 purpose implies when to use it: when logging out of LinkedIn via this MCP server. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like linkedin_auth_status or linkedin_start_oauth_flow, nor does it state when not to use it, so usage guidance remains implied rather than explicit.

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