get_settingReads settings rows from a specified LinkedIn settings section URL, enabling AI assistants to inspect account preferences via a logged-in browser session.
Read settings rows from a settings section page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section_url | Yes | Full URL of the settings section (e.g. https://www.linkedin.com/settings/visibility/). |
| 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 by structured data. The description's word 'Read' merely restates that and adds nothing about authentication needs, how many rows are returned, or pagination behavior.
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 filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.
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 not be explained, and the one parameter is fully documented. What is missing is routing context against the many settings-related siblings, which for a simple read tool is the main remaining gap.
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% and the single parameter is fully documented with a concrete example URL. The description adds no format, constraint, or meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?
The description states a specific verb (Read) and resource (settings rows from a settings section page), so the operation is identifiable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the closely related siblings list_settings_sections and update_setting, leaving the boundary between reading sections and reading settings rows to inference.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_settings_sections (to discover section URLs) or update_setting (to mutate rows). The only implicit cue is the required section_url parameter, which the schema already conveys.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.