Retrieve a local log of LinkedIn job applications with their current status and submitted answers. Use it to review application history and track responses.
Historial local de postulaciones hechas con esta herramienta, con su estado y las respuestas dadas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the data is stored locally and includes application status and responses, but says nothing about ordering, freshness, read-only nature, or whether a session is required.
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?
A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. Nothing extraneous, though it is arguably too sparse for the information an agent needs.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description at least identifies the payload contents (status and responses). It is still incomplete regarding the limit parameter and result ordering.
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 0% for the single 'limit' parameter, and the description never mentions it, its bounds, or how the result set is capped or ordered. The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.
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?
States a specific resource and scope: a local history of applications made by this tool, including status and responses. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like linkedin_my_jobs, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with them.
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?
There is no statement of when to reach for this tool rather than linkedin_my_jobs, linkedin_job_apply, or linkedin_usage. Usage must be inferred entirely from the noun 'historial'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.