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 full burden. It mentions 'Returns remaining API calls and rate limit information,' which gives basic output context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits themselves, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool about rate limits, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds necessary detail in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the action and return value, with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple, parameterless tool.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and return value, but with no annotations and many complex siblings, it could better explain behavioral aspects like when to call it or what the output schema contains. The output schema reduces burden, but more context would help.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information (none needed), but it doesn't detract from the schema's completeness. A 5 would require extra value beyond the schema, which isn't applicable here.

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 with 'Get current rate limit status' (specific verb + resource). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on API rate limits rather than content, profiles, or posts. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar tools (none exist in the sibling list), so it's not a perfect 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 prerequisites (e.g., after API calls), frequency, or context (e.g., before batch operations). With many sibling tools for analytics and content management, usage context is implied but not stated.

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