Skip to main content
Glama
freesolo-co

Clado MCP Server

by freesolo-co

linkedin_post_reactions

Analyze LinkedIn post engagement by retrieving reactions and interaction data from a specific URL to measure audience response.

Instructions

Retrieves reactions and engagement data for a specific LinkedIn post URL.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
post_urlYesThe LinkedIn post URL to analyze for reactions.

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the linkedin_post_reactions tool. It takes a post_url, calls the Clado API to fetch reactions, and returns the data as text content.
    export const linkedinPostReactionsTool = async ({
      post_url,
    }: LinkedinPostReactionsParams) => {
      const apiUrl = new URL("https://search.clado.ai/api/enrich/post-reactions");
      apiUrl.searchParams.append("url", post_url);
    
      const response = await makeCladoRequest(apiUrl.toString(), {});
      const responseData = await response.json();
    
      if (responseData.error) {
        throw new Error(
          `Failed to get LinkedIn post reactions: ${JSON.stringify(responseData.error)}`
        );
      }
    
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text" as const,
            text: `LinkedIn post reactions retrieved successfully: ${JSON.stringify(responseData, null, 2)}`
          }
        ]
      };
    }; 
  • Zod schema defining the input parameter post_url for the tool.
    export const linkedinPostReactionsSchema = {
      post_url: z.string().describe("The LinkedIn post URL to analyze for reactions."),
    };
  • src/index.ts:52-57 (registration)
    Registration of the linkedin_post_reactions tool with the MCP server in the main index file.
    server.tool(
      linkedinPostReactionsName,
      linkedinPostReactionsDescription,
      linkedinPostReactionsSchema,
      linkedinPostReactionsTool
    );
  • Registration of the linkedin_post_reactions tool in the server setup function.
    server.tool(
      linkedinPostReactionsName,
      linkedinPostReactionsDescription,
      linkedinPostReactionsSchema,
      linkedinPostReactionsTool
    );
  • TypeScript type definition for the tool parameters.
    type LinkedinPostReactionsParams = {
      post_url: string;
    };
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'retrieves' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or what specific engagement metrics are included. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with external APIs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without any redundant information. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of retrieving engagement data from LinkedIn (likely involving API calls), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what data is returned (e.g., types of reactions, metrics), potential limitations, or error handling, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective tool use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'post_url' clearly documented as 'The LinkedIn post URL to analyze for reactions.' The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond this, so it meets the baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'reactions and engagement data for a specific LinkedIn post URL', making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'scrape_linkedin' or 'enrich_linkedin', which might also involve LinkedIn data retrieval, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 any prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'scrape_linkedin' or 'enrich_linkedin', leaving the agent to infer usage context independently.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/freesolo-co/mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server