LinkedIn Intelligence MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), which implies non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'draft details' includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately concise with three sentences: a purpose statement, parameter explanation, and return value note. It's front-loaded with the main action. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the Args/Returns into a single fluent paragraph.

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's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks context on behavioral aspects like permissions or error handling, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 description adds minimal semantics: it explains that 'draft_id' is the 'ID of the draft'. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, this provides some clarification beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify the ID format (e.g., numeric, UUID) or constraints, so it only partially compensates for the low coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get a specific draft by ID' and 'Returns the draft details.' This specifies the verb (get), resource (draft), and scope (specific by ID). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_drafts' or 'get_my_posts', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_drafts' for browsing drafts or 'get_my_posts' for published content, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an existing draft ID. This leaves usage context unclear.

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