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 discloses the prerequisite (Playwright browser automation) and the return value ('Returns success status.'), which adds useful context beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens if the upload fails, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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. It uses bullet points for prerequisites and parameters, making it structured and easy to scan. However, the 'Returns success status.' could be integrated more smoothly, and there's minor redundancy in stating the tool name implicitly.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description does a decent job. It explains the parameter, mentions a prerequisite, and notes the return, which covers basics. However, for a mutation tool (upload), it could better address error handling or side effects to be fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by specifying that 'photo_path' is an 'Absolute path to the photo file (JPG, PNG)', which clarifies the parameter's purpose and acceptable file types beyond the schema's basic string type. This is helpful, but it doesn't detail constraints like file size or dimensions, keeping it from a perfect score.

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: 'Upload a new background/banner photo.' It specifies the verb (upload) and resource (background/banner photo), which is clear and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'upload_profile_photo' beyond the photo type, missing a direct comparison that would warrant a 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 some usage guidance: 'Requires Playwright browser automation to be enabled.' This implies a prerequisite but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'upload_profile_photo' or other media upload tools. It offers basic context but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives.

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