LinkedIn MCP Server

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 states the tool retrieves analytics data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, data freshness, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool in a social media API context.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action and resource clearly.

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 analytics tools and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed analytics and engagement data' includes, how results are structured, or any limitations. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to use the tool effectively.

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 'postId' parameter documented as 'LinkedIn post ID'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing details. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed analytics and engagement data for your posts', which specifies what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_profile_analytics' or 'get_my_posts', which might have overlapping purposes in the LinkedIn context.

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 prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare to siblings like 'get_profile_analytics' or 'get_my_posts', or specify contexts (e.g., post-level vs. profile-level analytics).

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