Check the connected LinkedIn member, token expiry, daily write usage, approval mode, and what the server can and cannot do without writing to LinkedIn.
Show the connected LinkedIn member, token expiry, today's write usage, the approval mode, and what this server can and cannot do. Never writes to LinkedIn.
| 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 readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Never writes to LinkedIn.' It goes beyond the annotations by disclosing what can be observed (token expiry, today's write usage, approval mode) and that the tool itself defines the server's capability limits — useful behavioral context for a status probe.
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 sentence enumerating outputs plus a four-word safety clause. Front-loaded with the resource being shown, zero filler, and the read-only guarantee is placed where it matters most.
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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it enumerates the key fields well. The phrase 'what this server can and cannot do' remains vague about the actual shape of that data, but for a zero-parameter read-only status tool this is close to complete.
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 expectation is a 4. The description appropriately does not invent parameter semantics and instead spends its words on output content, which is the relevant information for a no-arg status call.
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 ('Show') and enumerates the exact resources returned: connected member, token expiry, today's write usage, approval mode, and server capability boundaries. The closing 'Never writes to LinkedIn' implicitly distinguishes it from the write-oriented siblings linkedin_prepare_action and linkedin_execute_action.
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 the introspection call for connection/session state before invoking the action siblings, but the description never states when to call it versus linkedin_list_actions or the action tools, nor any prerequisites. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.