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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions deletion but fails to describe critical traits like whether this action is irreversible, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output schema contains. For a destructive operation with minimal annotations, this leaves significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a helpful example. There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying necessary information.

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 destructive nature, lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics but misses behavioral context like irreversibility or permission requirements. The output schema existence means return values need not be explained, but safety and operational details are lacking.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and one parameter, the description adds essential meaning by explaining that 'post_urn' is the identifier for the LinkedIn post to delete and provides an example format ('urn:li:share:123'). This compensates well for the lack of schema documentation, though it could specify more about URN sourcing or validation.

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 specific action ('Delete') and target resource ('a LinkedIn post'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'linkedin_update_post' or 'linkedin_delete_comment' by specifying the exact resource type (post) and mechanism (by its URN). It provides a concrete example ('urn:li:share:123') to illustrate the required format.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'linkedin_update_post' for modifying posts instead of deleting them, or prerequisites like needing an existing post URN. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage instructions.

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