create_postPublish a new text post to LinkedIn through your local browser session, or use dry run to compose without posting.
Create a new text post on LinkedIn.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The post body text. | |
| dry_run | No | When True, compose the post but do not publish. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.26.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the write-to-external-service profile is partly covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say the post publishes publicly under the authenticated account, whether authentication is required, or what observable effect the call has. The only marginal addition is that it is text-only.
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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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?
An output schema exists and the parameters are fully described, so the description needn't cover return values. What is missing is the contrast with create_post_with_image and any note about the public/persistent nature of a published post, which matter for a mutation tool with destructiveHint=true.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both 'text' and 'dry_run' are already fully documented in the schema, including dry_run's compose-without-publishing behavior. The description's 'text post' phrasing adds no syntax, length, or formatting meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Create a new text post on LinkedIn'), which is clear on its own. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling create_post_with_image, so an agent must infer the boundary between the text-only and image variants.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative (create_post_with_image) for posts that include media. The agent gets no routing help at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.