LinkedIn MCP Server

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 mentions the return format ('list of matching jobs with title, company, location, and URL'), which adds some context. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling, which are important for a search tool with no annotation coverage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by return details. Every sentence earns its place by adding value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and return format, which is adequate for a simple search tool. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like rate limits or error handling, leaving gaps in completeness for a tool with 4 parameters and no structured safety hints.

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%, meaning the input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by listing the searchable fields ('title, location, and/or company') and mentioning the return structure, but it does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific action ('Search LinkedIn job listings'), resources involved ('job listings'), and scope ('by title, location, and/or company'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_job_details' (which presumably retrieves details for a specific job) and 'get_connections' (which deals with connections rather than job listings).

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 implies usage through the phrase 'by title, location, and/or company,' suggesting when to use it (for searching jobs with these criteria). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_job_details' or provide exclusions (e.g., when not to use it for non-job-related searches).

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