Retrieve the list of people who reacted to a LinkedIn post using its activity id. Returns paginated reactions with limit and offset for auditing engagement.
Who reacted to a LinkedIn post, by activity id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Results per page (1–50). | |
| offset | No | Offset into the captured results. | |
| activity_id | Yes | Numeric activity id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only implies a read operation. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (despite limit/offset params), or what the response contains, leaving significant behavioral 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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, which is efficient for a simple read tool. However, it is arguably too terse for the tool's behavioral complexity, keeping it from a 5.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what is returned (e.g., list of profiles with pagination) and any behavioral constraints. It provides none of this, leaving the agent under-informed for invocation.
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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are fully documented in the schema itself. The description mentions only the required activity_id and adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('Who reacted to a LinkedIn post') and scopes it by activity id, making it distinguishable from siblings like get_post. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate from alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The agent must infer that this is the right tool for reactions rather than, say, get_post, with no help from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.