get_post_reactionsRetrieve the reaction summary of a LinkedIn post by providing its URL. See engagement types and counts without opening the post manually.
Read the reaction summary of a LinkedIn post.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post_url | Yes | Full URL of the post. |
| 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 readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the annotations: no note on whether authentication or a valid session is required, no indication of how many reactions are returned or whether the summary is aggregated versus paginated, and no mention of visibility restrictions on posts.
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 the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.
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, so return values need no explanation, and the tool is a simple one-parameter read whose annotations carry the safety profile. What remains missing is any routing context relative to react_to_post and the other post-reading siblings, which matters in a 40-tool namespace.
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 a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents post_url as 'Full URL of the post.' The description adds no format detail (e.g., activity URN vs full URL, whether share/ugc URLs are accepted), so 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 ('Read') and resource ('reaction summary of a LinkedIn post'), which is materially distinct from the write-side sibling react_to_post. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never names or contrasts itself with any sibling, so an agent must infer the distinction from the verb alone.
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 description offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as react_to_post or get_feed. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'of a LinkedIn post'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.