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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a mutation operation (exchanging codes for tokens) and implies persistence, but doesn't detail authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'persistent' entails. With no annotations to contradict, it adds some context but lacks depth for a critical auth tool.

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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resources, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 as an OAuth exchange with 1 parameter, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on authentication flow, error cases, or integration with siblings like 'linkedin_get_oauth_url', making it incomplete for full contextual understanding.

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 mentions 'browser-provided authorization code' for the 'code' parameter, adding semantic meaning beyond the schema's type definition. However, it doesn't explain the code's format, source, or validation rules, leaving gaps in parameter understanding despite the low coverage baseline.

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 action ('Exchange') and the resources involved ('authorization code' for 'access token'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like 'linkedin_get_oauth_url', which might be related in the OAuth flow, leaving room for slight ambiguity in 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as how it fits into the OAuth flow with 'linkedin_get_oauth_url' or other auth-related operations. It lacks explicit instructions on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, offering only a basic functional statement without contextual usage advice.

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