get_person_profile_postsReturns an empty list if the person has not posted. Group: Person. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of posts per page. | |
| start | No | Offset of the first result. Pass the `cursor` value from the previous response to fetch the next page. | |
| memberId | Yes | A LinkedIn member identifier, returned by `/people/search` and `/company/{companyId}/employees`. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries much of the burden. It usefully discloses that an empty list is returned when the person has not posted and notes the billing cost. However, it does not mention authentication needs, pagination behavior beyond the schema, error cases, or whether the posts are public or authored-only.
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?
The description is short and front-loads the most notable behavioral detail: the empty-list result. Group and billing details are compact and do not add clutter. It could have used the space to state the purpose more explicitly, but it remains efficient.
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?
For a simple paginated post-listing tool, the schema covers parameter mechanics well, but no output schema exists and the description does not characterize the returned post objects or provide usage context. The empty-list behavior helps, but an agent still lacks guidance on what a successful response looks like or when to choose this tool over related person/post tools.
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?
The input schema already provides strong descriptions and examples for all three parameters, including the cursor-based pagination semantic on `start`. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 title and name clearly identify the operation as listing a person's posts, and the description mentions the person context via 'Group: Person.' It is distinguishable from siblings like get_person_profile because it explicitly targets posts, even though the description itself does not restate the verb 'list.'
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_person_profile or the post-detail tools. The first sentence explains an edge-case behavior, but it does not state use cases, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools map to distinct resource-action pairs, but `get_company_companyId_employees` and `get_people_search` can both return person listings, creating minor overlap. `get_company_posts` vs `get_person_profile_posts` is clear by resource name, so confusion is limited.
All tools follow a `get_<resource>` pattern with path-like segments, but there are minor inconsistencies such as `get_people_search` (plural) vs `get_person_profile` (singular), and redundant segments like `get_company_companyId_employees`. Overall the pattern is recognizable and predictable.
Twelve tools is well-scoped for a read-only LinkedIn data access server. The surface covers companies, jobs, people, and posts without unnecessary duplication or excessive fragmentation.
The core read workflows for company, job, person, and post data are well covered. A notable minor gap is the lack of a standalone `get_post` tool to fetch a post's details by ID, though post content appears in company and person post listings.