unfollow_companyStop following a LinkedIn company page using its URL slug. Removes that company from your followed list in your logged-in LinkedIn session.
Unfollow a LinkedIn company page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company_slug | Yes | LinkedIn company URL slug (e.g. "acme-corp"). |
| 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 by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond the name: it does not say what state is removed, whether an unfollow is reversible, whether it errors if the page was not followed, or that it mutates a remote account relationship.
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?
It is a single short sentence with zero filler and the action is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse for a destructive mutation, but as a matter of conciseness and structure it wastes nothing.
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 described, and annotations carry the destructive signal. Still, a destructive remote mutation with a required identifier leaves the agent without any note on consequences or reversibility, which is a real gap for this operation.
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 company_slug parameter is fully documented with an example in the schema. The description adds no format or validation detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Unfollow') and resource ('a LinkedIn company page'), which is clearer than a bare restatement of the name. It does not, however, reference the sibling follow_company or explain the relationship to it, so sibling differentiation is left to the tool name 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus follow_company, or when not to use it. Nothing addresses prerequisites such as being logged in or currently following the page, nor whether the call is idempotent. The agent must infer all usage conditions from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.