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 adds the permission requirement, which is valuable context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't describe other traits like rate limits, pagination, or what 'recent' means in terms of time range, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 states the action and includes a key prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids any unnecessary details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (a read operation with no parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the purpose and a permission requirement, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like scope or limitations, making it just sufficient for basic use.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate here. It adds no semantic details beyond the schema, but with zero parameters, the baseline is 4 as it doesn't need to compensate for missing information.

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 ('List') and resource ('user's recent posts'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'linkedin_get_post_comments' or 'linkedin_search_people', which might also retrieve posts or related content, so it falls short of 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 includes a prerequisite ('Requires 'r_member_social' permission'), which provides some context for when to use it, but it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'linkedin_get_post_comments' or 'linkedin_search_people' for post-related queries. Usage is implied rather than fully specified.

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