Profile overview
get_api_v1_profile_overviewGet basic profile information by username Group: Profile. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | No |
linkdapi-the-best-linkedin-professional-data-api
by com.jojapi
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It merely states 'Get' without disclosing that this is a read-only operation, potential permissions, or any side effects or limitations. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that interacts with user data.
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 a single, succinct sentence with no redundant information. It is perfectly sized for a simple GET endpoint and follows a clear structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description omits crucial context such as the return format, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any error conditions. Since no output schema is provided, the description should compensate, but it does not.
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?
The description mentions 'by username', clarifying the purpose of the 'username' parameter, which adds value beyond the schema's type and example. However, it does not elaborate on what 'basic' includes or whether the username is a handle, ID, or URN.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that it retrieves basic profile information using a username. The verb 'Get' is explicit, and 'basic' hints at a summary-level response, which differentiates it from more detailed profile endpoints like 'details' or 'about'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus other profile-related sibling tools (e.g., get_details, get_about). It lacks explicit context for selecting this endpoint over alternatives.
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.
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools target distinct resources (profiles, posts, companies, jobs), but there is notable overlap among profile-related endpoints (about, overview, details, full) and company insights vs. employees_data vs. insights. An agent could struggle to pick the right one without reading fine-grained descriptions.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming follows a consistent snake_case pattern starting with 'get_api_v1_', making it predictable. However, there are typos ('siilar', 'campany'), mixed terms (lookup vs. search vs. get), and extremely long redundant prefixes that reduce clarity, though the overall style is uniform.
Tool Count2/5
With 50 tools, this is well above the 25-tool threshold, making the surface feel heavy and overwhelming. While the domain is broad (LinkedIn data), many endpoints could be consolidated (e.g., profile about/overview/details/full) to reduce the count without losing functionality.
Completeness4/5
For a read-only LinkedIn data API, the coverage is quite comprehensive: profiles, posts, companies, jobs, searches, geos, skills, and services are all represented. Obvious gaps are minimal—only a few advanced search filters or batch operations could be missing, but core data retrieval is well covered.