Dievio

Lookup Linkedin

lookup_linkedin

DestructiveIdempotent

Look up professional contacts in Dievio using LinkedIn profile URLs. Returns work emails by default; personal emails and phones require explicit opt-in. Spends subscription credits for returned matches. Use a stable request_id per page; save returned contacts with add_leads_to_list and retain additional fields in lead_data.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "request_id": "<request_id>",
      "linkedinUrls": "<linkedinUrls>",
      "includePhones": "<includePhones>",
      "includeWorkEmails": "<includeWorkEmails>",
      "includePersonalEmails": "<includePersonalEmails>",
      "onlyWithEmails": "<onlyWithEmails>",
      "perPage": "<perPage>",
      "page": "<page>",
      "maxResults": "<maxResults>"
    },
    "name": "lookup_linkedin"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	Yes
`perPage`	Yes
`maxResults`	Yes
`request_id`	Yes	Stable idempotency UUID. Reuse with identical arguments on retry.
`linkedinUrls`	Yes
`includePhones`	Yes
`onlyWithEmails`	Yes
`includeWorkEmails`	Yes
`includePersonalEmails`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 31, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / includePersonalEmails / default
```
Previous value: -trueNew value: +false
```

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "request_id",
-  "linkedinUrls"
-]New value: +[
+  "request_id",
+  "linkedinUrls",
+  "includePhones",
+  "includeWorkEmails",
+  "includePersonalEmails",
+  "onlyWithEmails",
+  "perPage",
+  "page",
+  "maxResults"
+]

First observedOct 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: credit spending per returned match, default and opt-in contact fields, stable request_id usage per page, and a follow-up persistence workflow. It does not explain credit exhaustion, rate limits, or why destructiveHint=true is set beyond the credit-cost side effect, so it is strong but not complete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded, compact, and every sentence adds actionable information: purpose, defaults, credit cost, idempotency, and the next step. There is no repetition or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description should carry more of the return-value burden; it only hints at work/personal emails, phones, and additional lead_data fields. For a 9-required-parameter, credit-spending lookup, pagination and output-shape details remain underspecified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 11%, and the description compensates for request_id, linkedinUrls, includeWorkEmails, includePersonalEmails, and includePhones. However, onlyWithEmails, page, perPage, and maxResults remain semantically unexplained despite being required parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Look up professional contacts') and scope ('using LinkedIn profile URLs'), which distinguishes it from search/list siblings that use filters rather than explicit URLs. An agent can tell this is a URL-based contact enrichment lookup.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear usage context: work emails are returned by default, personal emails and phones require opt-in, credits are spent per match, and returned contacts should be saved with add_leads_to_list. It does not explicitly contrast with search_leads or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of 5.

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

All Dievio tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?