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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'updates' settings, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't specify whether this requires elevated permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to existing settings not mentioned, or any rate limits. The 'when you get approved' hint adds some context but lacks operational details.

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 communicates the core purpose upfront. It avoids unnecessary words while including the key operational context ('when you get approved'). However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the usage condition from the action.

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?

For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers the what and when but lacks details about behavioral implications, error conditions, or response format. Given the complexity of updating API access settings, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 all 4 parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given complete schema documentation.

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 ('update') and resource ('LinkedIn API partnership access settings') with a specific context ('when you get approved for special access'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on API access configuration rather than social interactions or data retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools (none exist in the sibling list).

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 implied usage context ('when you get approved for special access'), suggesting this tool should only be used after obtaining special permissions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives for related tasks. No guidance is given about prerequisites beyond the approval mention.

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