Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• linkedin_get_meB
  3.4/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  There are no annotations, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It mentions the condition for email retrieval ('if the token carries the scope') but does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated.

  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, concise sentence that conveys all essential information without padding. It avoids unnecessary details and is well-structured for quick comprehension.

  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?

  The description provides sufficient context for the tool's expected behavior: it returns the member's id, name, and email (under a scope condition). Since there is no output schema, this explanation of the return content is valuable. It does not cover error cases or output formatting, but for a simple retrieval tool, this is reasonably complete.

  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?

  The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is therefore 100% (empty). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the absence of parameters, which is already evident from the empty schema. This meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

  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 clearly states the tool's purpose: retrieving the authenticated member's id, name, and email (with a scope condition). It identifies the specific resource ('me') and the data returned, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines2/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., linkedin_call or linkedin_create_post). While the purpose is self-evident, it does not mention alternatives or situations where another tool would be preferred, so the guidance is only implicit.

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

• linkedin_callA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  Discloses automatic header injection for /rest/ paths and a hard limitation on Comments, but with no annotations it leaves other behaviors (auth failures, error format, side effects of POST/PUT/DELETE) undocumented.

  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?

  Compact and focused: two short paragraphs plus a warning. No filler or redundant explanation.

  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?

  Provides essential context for a generic endpoint tool, including base URL and a negative scope, but lacks examples, response format, or error handling guidance that would make it fully self-contained.

  Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

  Parameters2/5

  Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

  Only the path parameter receives meaningful description (relative URLs and /rest/ header behavior); body and query are left generic, and method relies on its enum. Schema coverage is only 25%, and the description does not compensate for the remaining parameters.

  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?

  Clearly states it calls any LinkedIn endpoint directly, positioning it as a catch-all beyond specialized siblings. The phrase 'rest of the API' distinguishes it from the listed specific tools.

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  Explains when to use it (to reach endpoints not covered by the catalog) and explicitly warns that Comments are not reachable. Could be more explicit about preferring sibling tools when they match, but the context makes the intended use clear.

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

• linkedin_delete_postA
  4/5.0
  Behavior4/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It states the operation is 'Irreversible,' which is the single most important behavioral trait for a destructive tool, and it scopes the action to the user's own posts. It does not mention error conditions, permissions, or side effects, but the critical permanence warning is present.

  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?

  Two sentences with zero filler: the verb and resource are front-loaded, the identification method is stated, and the irreversibility warning is appended. Every word earns its place.

  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?

  For a single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential ground: what is deleted, whose post, how to identify it, and that it cannot be undone. The only gaps are the return value on success and failure cases, which are minor for a tool this simple.

  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 100% — the schema already documents post_urn with a concrete example format (urn:li:share:7123456789). The description's 'by URN' merely reinforces what the schema states and adds no new semantic meaning. The baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the documentation burden.

  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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') with a precise resource ('one of your own posts') and the identification method ('by URN'). The 'your own' scope clearly differentiates it from any broader deletion capability and from siblings like linkedin_create_post, linkedin_get_me, and the generic linkedin_call. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

  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 usage context is implied: the agent should use this when a user wants to remove one of their own posts. The 'your own' constraint provides a mild exclusion, but the description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus linkedin_create_post or linkedin_call. Guidance is adequate but inferred rather than stated.

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

• linkedin_create_postA
  4.4/5.0
  Behavior5/5

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

  With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses irreversibility (no draft state, goes live on success), approval ordering, image upload/validation before publish, and that media cannot be added later via edit. This is high-value behavioral context beyond the schema.

  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?

  Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by two dense warnings that each earn their place. No filler or repetition of schema details.

  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?

  The critical context for a publish operation is covered: no draft, approval before, image failure behavior, and post-edit limitation. The only gap is that the return value/output is not described, which matters given there is no output schema.

  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 already documents text and image_path, and the description adds useful behavioral semantics for image_path (uploaded and confirmed first, cannot add media later). However, visibility and image_alt_text are left to inference despite 50% schema coverage, and the description doesn't explain their role.

  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 opening phrase 'Publish to LinkedIn' names a specific verb and resource, making the operation unambiguous. It is clearly distinct from siblings linkedin_get_me (read), linkedin_delete_post (destructive), and linkedin_call (raw API).

  Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

  Usage Guidelines4/5

  Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

  The description gives explicit workflow guidance: approval must happen before the call because there is no draft lifecycle, and the post goes live immediately. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the context is strong enough for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate.

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