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 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like irreversibility, permission requirements, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The output schema exists but isn't referenced.

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, followed by parameter details in a structured 'Args:' section. It's appropriately sized with no redundant sentences, though the parameter explanations could be more informative.

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 a destructive tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines, leaving gaps for safe 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists both parameters with brief explanations ('URN of the comment to delete', 'URN of the parent post/object'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't clarify URN format, examples, or relationships between parameters.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a specific comment'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'linkedin_delete_post' by specifying the comment resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them in the description text.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'linkedin_delete_post' or 'linkedin_update_post'. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., ownership/permissions), error conditions, or typical scenarios for deletion.

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