LinkedIn Custom MCP Server

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

Annotations are minimal (only a title), so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation by using 'Get', but does not specify aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. No contradiction with annotations exists, but it adds limited 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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every part contributes to understanding the tool's basic function efficiently.

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 moderate complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and low parameter coverage, it should provide more context on usage and parameters to be fully complete.

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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'for a specific post/share', which hints at the 'object_urn' parameter's purpose, but does not explain the format, syntax, or how to obtain it. This adds some meaning but is insufficient for full clarity.

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 ('Get') and target resource ('comments for a specific post/share'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'linkedin_get_recent_posts' or 'linkedin_search_companies', which might also involve retrieving content, so it lacks sibling distinction for a perfect score.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid post identifier, or compare it to siblings like 'linkedin_get_recent_posts' for broader queries, leaving usage context implied at best.

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