Skip to main content
Glama

Find LinkedIn URL

find_linkedin_url
Read-only

For email outreach where the agent might later add LinkedIn touches, prefer queue_email_outreach(enrich=True) over calling this tool separately — enrich folds the lookup into the queue boundary so the resulting tracking row carries both identifiers.

Costs 1 Sliq credit per verified hit. Free when the user has connected their own Apollo key. Dict with success, linkedin_url, and person fields when verified; {success: False, error: ...} when Apollo returns no match; a 429 throttle adds rate_limited: True (transient — retry later, not a permanent miss).

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": {
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "find_linkedin_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoOptional full name to narrow the Apollo match.
emailYesEmail address to look up.
on_behalf_ofNoA teammate's email, or an agency client's from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / on_behalf_of / description
      Previous value: -"An agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that client's account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."New value: +"A teammate's email, or an agency client's from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / on_behalf_of
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "description": "An agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that client's account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."
      +}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: discloses cost (1 Sliq credit per verified hit, free with a user-connected Apollo key) and the failure taxonomy in <returns> — no-match returns success:False, while a 429 adds rate_limited:True and is explicitly transient rather than a permanent miss. That distinction is operationally important and is not derivable from the schema or annotations.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded summary followed by usage, cost, and return behavior in a logical order, with every sentence carrying information. The XML-style <summary>/<returns> scaffolding adds verbosity without adding meaning, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Although there is no output schema, the <returns> block documents the success payload, the no-match shape, and the rate-limit variant, and cost/credits are covered. For a single-email lookup tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it and interpret the result is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including `on_behalf_of` and the name-narrowing behavior. The description reinforces that the lookup is keyed on email but adds no format, normalization, or matching-precedence detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Find a LinkedIn profile URL for a person given their email, using Apollo.io') and immediately differentiates itself by naming the sibling it inverts ('The reverse of `find_email`'). An agent can distinguish this from `find_email`, `enrich_linkedin_profiles`, or `search_linkedin_people` without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives concrete when-to-use scenarios (mixed-channel outreach that must dedup against the email step; supplying the URL that `find_phone_number` requires) and an explicit alternative with a condition: prefer `queue_email_outreach(enrich=True)` when the agent may later add LinkedIn touches. Both the routing rule and its exception are stated.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources