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 states the action ('Bookmark') but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only or mutating operation, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool that likely modifies user data, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 key action ('Bookmark a job') and adds purpose ('for later review and application') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely performs a mutation (bookmarking). It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral constraints like authentication needs. For a tool with one parameter but no structured safety or output information, more context is needed.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'jobId' clearly documented as 'LinkedIn job ID'. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as where to find job IDs or format details, but the schema already provides adequate coverage, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Bookmark') and resource ('a job'), with the purpose 'for later review and application' adding useful context. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_saved_jobs' or 'search_jobs', but the verb 'Bookmark' is specific enough to understand the core function.

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 like 'get_saved_jobs' (which likely retrieves bookmarked jobs) or 'search_jobs' (which finds jobs to potentially bookmark). There's no mention of prerequisites, such as needing authentication first, or any context about when bookmarking is appropriate.

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