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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists posts and returns a list, but it doesn't describe key behaviors such as pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's a read-only operation (though listing implies reading). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first ('List all scheduled posts.'). The additional details about args and returns are concise and relevant. However, the formatting with 'Args:' and 'Returns' is slightly verbose for such a simple tool, preventing a perfect score.

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, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly adequate. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics well. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., pagination, auth needs) and usage guidelines, which are gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 meaningful semantics beyond the input schema. The schema has 0% description coverage and only defines 'status' as a nullable string, but the description specifies that 'status' filters by values like 'pending, published, failed, cancelled'. This clarifies the parameter's purpose and possible values, compensating well for the low schema 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: 'List all scheduled posts.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('scheduled posts'), making the action and target unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_scheduled_post' (singular) or 'list_drafts', which might serve similar listing functions in different contexts, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 'get_scheduled_post' (for a single post) or 'list_drafts' (for drafts), nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage. The only implied usage is filtering by status, but this is a parameter detail, not a guideline.

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