linkedin_get_postFetch a single LinkedIn post by its URN to access post content and metadata. Use this action to retrieve a specific post using its unique identifier.
Fetches a single post by URN. Reading member posts requires the r_member_social permission (restricted); organization posts require r_organization_social.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| post_urn | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds critical context about required OAuth permissions (r_member_social vs r_organization_social) that is not in the annotations. This directly helps an agent anticipate authorization failures. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Two sentences with zero fluff. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the permission note is a concise, relevant addition. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple (one param, read-only) and annotations cover safety. The description covers permissions, which is a key operational detail. However, the lack of output-format description and the weak parameter explanation (see parameter_semantics) leave minor gaps. Still, for a basic fetch, it is largely adequate.
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 for the post_urn parameter. It only repeats the phrase 'by URN', which adds no meaning beyond the parameter name itself. It does not explain what a URN looks like, how to obtain one, or any format nuances beyond the schema pattern. This is a significant gap.
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 states a specific verb ('Fetches') and resource ('a single post') and specifies the key discriminator (by URN). This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like linkedin_list_posts and linkedin_get_post_stats, and the intent is unambiguous.
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 gives clear context: use this when you have a post URN and need that specific post. It also notes permission prerequisites, which are important usage constraints. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., 'use list_posts to find URNs') or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.