LinkedIn MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what happens on errors. More behavioral context is needed for a tool accessing social media data.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of accessing a social media feed, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on authentication requirements, return format (e.g., post objects, metadata), error handling, or how it differs from sibling tools like get_my_posts. More context is needed for 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%, with the single parameter 'count' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying retrieval of posts, which aligns with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb 'access' and resource 'LinkedIn feed with posts from your network', making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like get_my_posts (personal posts) and get_profile (profile data), but could be more specific about what 'feed' entails versus other feed-related tools.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_my_posts or search_people for content discovery. The description implies usage for viewing network posts, but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., authentication status) or exclusions (e.g., not for personal posts).

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