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. It discloses that this tool 'Set or update' a URL, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't specify behavioral traits like whether changes are persistent, if there are rate limits, or what happens on failure. The description adds some context about being a prerequisite, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error handling, making it adequate but with gaps.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides crucial usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose and usage context effectively. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like persistence or errors, and without an output schema, it doesn't explain return values, leaving minor gaps that prevent a perfect score.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'linkedin_url' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter formats, constraints, or examples. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 tool's purpose: 'Set or update the LinkedIn profile URL to analyze.' This specifies the verb ('Set or update'), resource ('LinkedIn profile URL'), and action ('to analyze'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'refresh_linkedin_profile' or 'get_linkedin_profile', which might have overlapping URL-setting contexts, so it doesn't reach a perfect 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 explicit usage guidance: 'Required before using profile/posts retrieval tools if not set previously.' This clearly states when to use this tool (as a prerequisite for other tools) and implies when not to use it (if already set), offering strong context for selection among siblings like 'get_linkedin_profile' or 'refresh_linkedin_posts'.

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