LinkedIn MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving 'published' posts and 'engagement metrics,' but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this requires authentication (implied by 'your' but not explicit), rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the 'count' parameter), or what happens if no posts exist. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 moderate complexity (retrieving user-specific data with metrics), no annotations, no output schema, and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on authentication needs, output format, or error handling, which are important for a tool interacting with a social media platform.

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 'count' parameter well-documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as default behavior or constraints. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('your published LinkedIn posts'), and specifies 'with engagement metrics' to indicate what data is included. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_feed' or 'get_post_analytics' that might also retrieve posts or analytics.

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. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_my_posts' over 'get_feed' (which might include others' posts) or 'get_post_analytics' (which might focus on analytics rather than posts themselves), nor does it specify any prerequisites like authentication.

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