LinkedIn MCP Assistant

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions publishing and media inclusion but fails to disclose critical traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the action is irreversible, or what happens on success/failure (e.g., post ID returned). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 action ('Publish a text post to LinkedIn') and includes essential details ('optionally including media') without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, 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 mutation with media handling), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like authentication, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, providing detailed documentation for both parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'optionally including media (images/videos) specified by URL,' which aligns with the schema but doesn't elaborate further. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Publish a text post to LinkedIn') and resource ('LinkedIn post'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'schedule_linkedin_post' (which schedules rather than publishes immediately) and 'publish_twitter_post' (which targets a different platform). It also mentions optional media inclusion, adding specificity.

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 implies usage by specifying 'optionally including media,' which suggests it's for creating posts with or without attachments. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'schedule_linkedin_post' (for delayed publishing) or 'generate_linkedin_post' (for content creation without publishing), leaving room for ambiguity.

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