LinkedIn Custom MCP Server

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries full burden. It correctly describes the tool's function but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires prior configuration, what permissions/scopes the URL includes, rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds basic context but lacks operational details.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste - every word contributes essential information. Front-loaded with the core action and resource, efficiently structured for immediate understanding.

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 simple purpose (generate URL), no parameters, and existence of an output schema (which presumably documents the URL format), the description is reasonably complete. However, it could benefit from mentioning typical next steps (like redirecting users to the URL) for full context.

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 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and the schema already documents this completely.

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 ('Generate') and resource ('LinkedIn OAuth 2.0 authorization URL') with precise scope ('for browser login'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'linkedin_exchange_code' which handles token exchange rather than URL generation.

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 implies usage context ('for browser login') suggesting this tool is for initiating OAuth flow, but doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like direct API calls or other auth methods. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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