Find employees at a company on LinkedIn. Returns name, headline, location, and profile URL. Uses Google's index, so no LinkedIn login or cookies are needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| company | Yes | Company name (e.g. "Stripe", "Notion") | |
| jobTitle | No | Optional job title filter (e.g. "Head of Marketing", "CTO") | |
| maxResults | No | Max profiles to return (default 25) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the mechanism ('Uses Google's index, so no LinkedIn login or cookies are needed'), which is real value for an agent assessing auth requirements and reliability. It stops short of covering result quality, rate limits, pagination, or failure behavior.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then return fields, then the auth/data-source caveat. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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?
With no output schema, listing the return fields (name, headline, location, profile URL) is a genuine and necessary addition, and the auth note covers a common concern. Still missing pagination/truncation behavior and sibling disambiguation for a tool in a crowded LinkedIn namespace.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (company, jobTitle, maxResults) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or syntax meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Find employees at a company on LinkedIn'), which is clear and actionable. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like find_linkedin_candidates or get_linkedin_profiles, leaving the agent to guess which LinkedIn people-search tool applies.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description never mentions find_linkedin_candidates or get_linkedin_profiles, nor any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, so selection between the several LinkedIn tools is left entirely to inference.
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.
