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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching by keywords but doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., profiles, contact info), any limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs), or how results are structured. This leaves significant gaps for a search tool.

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. It efficiently communicates the core function without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for brevity and clarity.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like search scope or limitations, and with no annotations to fill gaps, it doesn't fully prepare an agent for effective use, scoring at the baseline for viability.

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% schema description coverage and one parameter ('keywords'), the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It specifies that searching is 'by keywords,' which gives a hint about the parameter's purpose, but doesn't detail format, examples, or constraints, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 people') and resource ('on LinkedIn'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'linkedin_search_companies' or 'linkedin_search_jobs' beyond the resource type, which keeps it from 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 like 'linkedin_get_member_profile' for specific profiles or 'linkedin_search_companies' for company searches. 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.