get_guidelinesReturn recruiter-search-based LinkedIn profile guidelines section by section, or omit the section to retrieve the full guide for profile editing.
Return the section-by-section LinkedIn profile guidelines (recruiter-search based). Omit 'section' for the full guide.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| section | No | One section, e.g. headline, about, experience, open_to_work |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds that the guidelines are recruiter-search based and section-by-section, but it does not describe response shape, size, or any other behavioral detail beyond that.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the key optional-parameter behavior. There is no unnecessary wording.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with one optional enum parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the main parameter behavior adequately. It could say a bit more about the returned content structure, but nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.
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 coverage is 100% and the enum already documents valid section values. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that omitting 'section' returns the full guide, which is not evident from the schema alone.
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: returning section-by-section LinkedIn profile guidelines, with the recruiter-search basis noted. It is clearly a guidelines-retrieval tool rather than a review or linting tool like its siblings, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.
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?
It gives one useful usage rule: omit 'section' to get the full guide. It does not explain when to use this tool versus siblings such as review_profile or lint_field, so the agent must infer that this is reference material rather than an evaluation tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.