LinkedIn MCP Server Status

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the 'non-secret' disclosure, which is a useful behavioral constraint about response content. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits beyond the annotations, which is acceptable for such a simple tool.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb and contains no fluff. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's purpose.

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 the tool has no parameters and a simple read-only purpose, the description provides enough context for an agent to select it correctly. The output schema is available to explain the return value, so no further description is needed.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. According to the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description appropriately focuses on the output rather than parameters.

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 uses the specific verb 'Return' and clearly identifies the resource as 'server configuration and readiness metadata.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like session.status and capabilities.list by focusing on server-level metadata. The 'non-secret' qualifier adds clarity about the response contents.

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 explicit when/when-not guidance is provided. The purpose is self-evident from the name and description, implying it should be used to check server readiness, but it does not explicitly distinguish from related tools like session.status. This is adequate but lacks explicit alternatives.

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