Preview proposed experience changes for LinkedIn or Naukri profiles before applying them, helping verify field updates and removals when an approved mutation capability is available.
Preview a experience mutation. Disabled by default and available only when the provider advertises an approved mutation capability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| changes | Yes | ||
| provider | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the tool is disabled by default and gated by provider capability, but it does not explicitly state that previewing is non-mutating, what the preview returns, or whether changes are validated or persisted.
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 short sentences and is front-loaded with the purpose before the availability caveat. It is efficient, though the grammar ("a experience") is slightly rough and no detail is given beyond the minimum.
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 preview mutation tool with two required parameters, a nested changes array, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It covers purpose and availability but omits parameter meaning, expected return behavior, and how the preview relates to the separate execution tool.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain the provider enum, the changes array structure, field/operation semantics, value handling, or the 25-item limit, leaving the schema to speak entirely for itself.
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 states a specific verb and resource: "Preview a experience mutation." This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from generic mutation tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling preview tools or define what "experience" covers.
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?
It provides a key availability condition (disabled by default, only when the provider advertises an approved mutation capability), which implies when it can be used. However, it does not mention when to choose this over execute_confirmed_mutation or other preview tools, nor does it describe the intended workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.