LinkedIn MCP

linkedin_delete_approved_post

Deletes a LinkedIn post only after explicit approval, supporting irreversible removals that require authorized LinkedIn API access.

Instructions

Delete a post only after explicit approval. This is irreversible and depends on LinkedIn API access.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "post_urn": "<post_urn>",
      "approved": "<approved>"
    },
    "name": "linkedin_delete_approved_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`approved`	Yes
`post_urn`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load; it does disclose the two most important traits, irreversibility and an external LinkedIn API dependency. It omits what happens when approved is false, whether the delete is hard or soft, what scopes are needed, and what errors surface.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with the destructive warning and dependency up front and zero filler. Every clause carries information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema means return values need not be described, and the destructive framing is present. What is missing is the parameter contract, especially the semantics of the approved flag, which matters for a destructive tool with no annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters and does not. It gestures at approval but never ties it to the approved boolean or explains what false does, and post_urn is not explained at all (format, where to obtain it).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (delete a post) and pairs it with a gating condition, which separates it from linkedin_publish_approved_post in the sibling list. It never mentions the post_urn identifier, but the action is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'only after explicit approval' clause implies a precondition, but it does not say when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it name any sibling. The LinkedIn API access caveat hints at prerequisites without stating them.

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

Deploy Server