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 states the search functionality but doesn't add context about rate limits, authentication needs, result format, or pagination. This is minimal but not contradictory, scoring a baseline 3 for adding some value beyond the sparse annotations.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values) and low complexity, the description is somewhat complete but lacks usage context and behavioral details. It's adequate as a basic search tool description but misses opportunities to guide the agent effectively.

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 'by keywords,' which aligns with the single parameter 'keywords,' adding semantic meaning. However, it doesn't detail syntax, format, or examples, leaving gaps. With one parameter and partial compensation, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Search for companies') and the resource ('on LinkedIn'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'linkedin_search_people' or 'linkedin_search_jobs', which would require a 5.

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 like 'linkedin_get_company_profile' or other search tools. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering only a basic functional statement.

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