pacing_getFetch current human-pacing settings—speed, working hours, daily/hourly caps, break patterns, and delay tables—to configure safe LinkedIn applicant exports.
Current human-pacing settings: speed, working hours/days, daily caps (with warm-up ramp), hourly cap, break pattern, delay table.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by listing what is returned, including the nuance of daily caps with a warm-up ramp, which is useful given there is no output schema.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scope appears first, and every listed item communicates a distinct aspect of the returned settings.
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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description is largely sufficient: annotations cover safety and the field enumeration compensates for the missing output schema. It could add exact response formatting or freshness semantics, but an agent can invoke it correctly without those.
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?
This tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully resolves parameter questions. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the baseline of 4 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 phrase 'Current human-pacing settings' names the resource and scope, and the verb 'Get' communicates the action precisely. The enumerated components distinguish it from siblings like pacing_set.
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 word 'Current' implies this is for reading existing settings, and the sibling pacing_set implies the write counterpart. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or direct mention of alternatives, so usage is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.