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 'Returns the scheduled post details with job_id,' which gives some output context, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if scheduling fails. For a mutation 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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then lists parameters with brief explanations in a formatted 'Args' section, and ends with return information. Every sentence adds value, though the formatting could be slightly more concise (e.g., combining some lines).

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, mutation operation) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns...'), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic operation, parameters, and output indication. However, without annotations and with sibling tools present, it could better address usage context and behavioral details.

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 significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'content' as 'Post content', 'scheduled_time' with format details, 'visibility' with enum values, and 'timezone' with default. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't cover validation rules or examples beyond the ISO format mention.

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: 'Schedule a post for future publishing.' This is a specific verb ('Schedule') with a resource ('a post') and indicates the temporal aspect ('for future publishing'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_post' or 'update_scheduled_post', which would be needed for a perfect 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 'create_post' (for immediate publishing), 'create_draft' (for unscheduled drafts), or 'update_scheduled_post' (for modifying scheduled posts). There's no context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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