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 full burden. It mentions searching but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, result limits, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the output contains. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (search with two parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on usage, behavior, and parameter details, relying on the output schema for return values without explaining them.

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 adds meaning by explaining that 'keywords' are used for searching and 'location' is optional, which clarifies beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't detail format (e.g., city names, coordinates) or constraints, leaving parameters partially documented.

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 jobs') and resource ('on LinkedIn'), with specific filtering criteria ('by keywords and optional location'). It distinguishes from siblings like linkedin_search_companies or linkedin_search_people by focusing on jobs, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other job-related tools like linkedin_get_job_details.

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 doesn't mention when to choose this over linkedin_get_job_details (for specific job details) or linkedin_search_companies/people (for other search types), nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or rate limits.

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