LinkedIn Custom MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only provide a title, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a creation tool, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Create a post with an image'), followed by a concise parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 3 parameters), annotations are minimal (only title), and an output schema exists (so return values needn't be explained), the description is moderately complete. It covers the action and parameters but lacks behavioral context like error handling or side effects, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining each parameter: 'text' as the post caption, 'image_source' as a local file path or public URL, and 'visibility' with allowed values ('PUBLIC' or 'CONNECTIONS'). This clarifies semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all details like format constraints.

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 clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('post with an image'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'linkedin_create_post' (likely text-only) and 'linkedin_update_post'. However, it doesn't explicitly mention LinkedIn as the platform, though this is implied by the tool name and sibling context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'linkedin_create_post' (presumably for text-only posts) or 'linkedin_update_post'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as authentication or image requirements, and doesn't mention when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.