Skip to main content
Glama

Query Linkedin Posts

query_linkedin_posts
Read-only

Use this to answer "which of my posts performed best?", "what's my average engagement?", "show me posts from last month", etc. This is the account-global table, with no agent/monitor dimension — for the feed a specific agent's monitors discovered (and to act on it), call query_monitored_posts.

Columns: id, social_id, text, share_url, posted_at, impressions, reactions, comments, reposts, is_own_post, author_name, author_headline, fetched_at, created_at, plus a derived engagement_rate string (reactions+comments+reposts over impressions, matching the UI) — '0.0' for posts with no impression data (e.g. third-party posts). The engagement_rate is computed after the query runs, so it can't appear in where_clause or order_by; filter and sort on the raw columns instead. Dict with count, truncated, and posts array (each row carries the columns above plus the derived engagement_rate).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNodefault 25, max 200.
offsetNoRows to skip for paging (default 0). When the result is truncated, re-call with offset += limit for the next page.
order_byNodefault "posted_at DESC". For top performers: "impressions DESC".posted_at DESC
where_clauseNoSQL WHERE. Examples: "posted_at >= NOW() - INTERVAL '30 days'" "impressions > 1000" "text ILIKE '%hiring%'" "is_own_post = false"1=1

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explains the data refresh cadence (daily M-F), the derived engagement_rate field that is computed after query and thus cannot be used in where_clause/order_by, and the meaning of is_own_post. It omits rate limits or auth requirements, but those are less critical for a read-only query tool.

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?

The description is lengthy but well-structured into summary and returns sections. It front-loads the purpose and packs in necessary details without redundancy. Slightly verbose but justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

For a query tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the data model, derived field limitations, paging, and sibling differentiation. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the engagement_rate derived field's non-filterability and giving practical where_clause examples. It also clarifies offset paging behavior. This goes beyond the schema's bare parameter definitions.

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 clearly states the tool queries LinkedIn posts tracked by the user, distinguishing own posts from third-party ones. It explicitly names the sibling query_monitored_posts and differentiates by scope, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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?

Provides concrete example questions the tool answers and explicitly states when to use the alternative query_monitored_posts for agent-specific monitors. This is direct when/when-not guidance, leaving no ambiguity.

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