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 discloses key behavioral traits: the operation deletes the old post and creates a new one with a new ID, and notes LinkedIn's API limitation. This adds crucial context beyond basic 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by a critical warning. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 (destructive update), lack of rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, behavioral nuances, and usage context, compensating well for minimal structured data.

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, the description adds value by implying parameters (post_urn for the post to update, text for new content). However, it doesn't detail all three parameters (e.g., visibility's default or meaning), leaving some gaps.

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 specific action ('Update a post's text') and resource ('post'), distinguishing it from siblings like linkedin_create_post (creation) and linkedin_delete_post (deletion). It precisely defines the operation's scope.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool (to update post text) and provides a critical warning about LinkedIn's API limitation, which implicitly guides usage by highlighting its destructive nature and alternative considerations. This addresses the tool's unique context among siblings.

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