Server Quality Checklist

Tool Scores

• comment_on_postA
  3.7/5.0
  Behavior2/5

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

  Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that this is a public write action, whether authentication is required, whether comments can be edited or deleted, or what the outcome/return value looks like. The algorithm timing note is the only additional behavioral context.

  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 tightly written sentences: the action comes first, and the timing rationale follows. There is no redundant detail or filler.

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

  Completeness3/5

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

  For a simple three-parameter tool, the purpose, actor, and timing are clearly covered and the schema fully documents parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description does not address what to expect after invocation or what prerequisites/limitations exist.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, and all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description only restates the 'as' choice ('profile or company page') and adds no new meaning beyond the schema.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description opens with a concrete verb and object: 'Comment on a LinkedIn post,' and further scopes it by actor ('as your profile or a company page'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like post_to_profile and get_recent_posts.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  The second sentence provides explicit timing guidance: 'Useful right after publishing — LinkedIn's feed algorithm weighs early engagement heavily.' It gives clear context for when the tool is valuable, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases.

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

• get_post_analyticsA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the metric list clarifies the expected result, but the description does not disclose possible limitations like data delay, permission requirements, or behavior when metrics are unavailable. It is adequate but not rich.

  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?

  The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and metric list without any filler or redundant wording. Every element earns its place.

  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?

  For a tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and the data returned. It doesn't discuss time ranges or permissions, but those are not essential for a straightforward analytics retrieval, and the schema covers the parameters.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both 'as' and 'post_urn' clearly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter formats, constraints, or relationships; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a well-defined resource ('performance stats for a specific LinkedIn post'), and enumerates the exact metrics returned (impressions, reactions, comments, shares, clicks). This makes it immediately distinguishable from siblings like post_to_profile or get_recent_posts.

  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 description clearly implies this tool is for retrieving analytics of one specific post, but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer it over get_recent_posts or mention any exclusions or alternatives. The use case is inferable from context, but no direct guidance is provided.

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

• post_to_company_pageA
  3.8/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key prerequisite (LINKEDIN_ORGANIZATION_URN) and the return payload (post URN and URL), and implies permission via 'you administer.' However, it does not mention immediate visibility, publication side effects, or failure behavior, which are relevant for a write operation.

  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?

  The description is two tight sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by a clear prerequisite and return value. Every sentence earns its place.

  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?

  For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the core essentials: action, target, admin scope, environmental prerequisite, and return values. It could be more complete by noting that posts are published immediately or by describing error handling, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add new meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides for text and article_url. It mentions the overall output but not parameter-specific details.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Post to a LinkedIn company page you administer.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like post_to_profile by specifying company page, and adds the admin constraint and expected return values (post URN and URL).

  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 context is clear—this is for posting to a company page, not a profile—and the prerequisite LINKEDIN_ORGANIZATION_URN must be set. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like post_to_profile, nor does it say when not to use this tool, leaving some inference to the agent.

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

• get_recent_postsA
  4/5.0
  Behavior3/5

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

  With no annotations, the description itself must carry behavioral disclosure. It signals a read-only list operation and a 'most recent' ordering, and it discloses that each post comes with a URN and basic stats. It does not mention pagination, authentication requirements, or exactly which stats are included, so it is adequate but not rich.

  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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary behavior and followed by a practical use case. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

  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?

  For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (URNs and basic stats) and why an agent would call it. It could be more specific about the shape of the stats, but nothing essential to selecting and invoking the tool is missing.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'as' as the profile/company enum and 'count' with default and max. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('most recent posts for your profile or company page'), and the key output ('URNs and basic stats'). This clearly separates it from the sibling create/comment/analytics tools without needing to read their schemas.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  The description gives a concrete use case: 'Useful for finding post URNs to comment on.' It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention get_post_analytics, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this over post/comment tools.

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

• post_to_profileA
  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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool posts and returns the post URN and URL, which is helpful, but it does not mention permissions, visibility settings, side effects, or failure modes. This is adequate but not rich.

  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?

  The description is two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and includes the return value, making it easy to parse quickly.

  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?

  For a simple two-parameter posting tool, the description covers the essential behavior and return value. It lacks explicit guidance about when to use sibling tools or any caveats about posting, but the schema plus the concise description are sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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

  Parameters3/5

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

  Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters (text and article_url). The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter semantics.

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

  Purpose5/5

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

  The description clearly states a specific action ('Post') and resource ('your personal LinkedIn profile'). The word 'personal' distinguishes it from the sibling tool post_to_company_page, so an agent can select it correctly without opening the schema.

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

  Usage Guidelines4/5

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

  The description provides clear context: use this when posting to a personal LinkedIn profile, as opposed to a company page. It does not explicitly list alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the 'personal' qualifier effectively communicates the intended scope.

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