delete_postDelete a LinkedIn post by providing its URL, with an optional dry run to preview the confirmation step before removal.
Delete one of your LinkedIn posts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | No | When True, navigate to the delete confirmation but do not confirm. | |
| post_url | Yes | Full URL of the post (e.g. /feed/update/urn:li:...). |
| 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 safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – it does not warn of irreversibility, does not mention the dry_run option that the schema exposes, and offers no confirmation/rollback context.
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 with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a destructive operation.
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 and annotations exist, so return values and safety are covered externally. However, for an irreversible delete the description omits any mention of the dry_run safeguard or expected effects, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to invoke it.
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 post_url and dry_run are already documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema carries the load.
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 verb and resource ('Delete one of your LinkedIn posts'), which clearly separates it from create_post and other post-related siblings. It stops short of naming any sibling or scoping nuance explicitly, but the action is unambiguous.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no indication of when the dry_run safety path should be preferred. The phrase 'your LinkedIn posts' implies an ownership scope but gives no actionable selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.