get_connections_summaryOverview of the user's imported LinkedIn data: how many connections, invitations and messages they have, when it was last imported, and the companies they know the most people at. Use this for questions about the shape of their network as a whole, or how much data is loaded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
With readOnlyHint already present in annotations, the description still adds useful behavioral context: it summarizes previously imported LinkedIn data rather than querying live data, and notes the last import time. This goes beyond the annotation's generic read-only signal.
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 two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and contents, and the second sentence provides a crisp usage directive. Every part earns its place.
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?
Given no output schema, the description explicitly lists what the tool returns: connection counts, invitation counts, message counts, last import date, and top companies. This is sufficient for an agent to know what result to expect. The sibling set is large, but the description's scope wording is clear enough.
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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter burden to bear. The description appropriately stays silent on parameters because none exist.
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 description clearly states a specific verb and resource: it provides an 'Overview of the user's imported LinkedIn data' and enumerates what it covers (connections, invitations, messages, last import date, top companies). This distinguishes it from related detail or search tools like get_connection_details or search_connections.
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?
It gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'questions about the shape of their network as a whole, or how much data is loaded.' However, it does not mention specific alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls just short of a top score.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear boundaries even within overlapping domains like LinkedIn (search vs. free-form query vs. profile vs. summary) and graph deletion (soft single, bulk soft, permanent single). Descriptions explicitly cross-reference related tools to prevent misselection.
The vast majority follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, search_, create_, delete_, etc.). A few noun-phrase exceptions like linkedin_analytics, mutual_connections, similar_objects, and what_needs_attention deviate slightly, but they are still descriptive and do not create confusion.
At 66 tools this is far beyond the 25+ threshold considered too many, even though the server covers many integration domains. Each domain has a coherent subset, but the overall surface is heavy for agents to navigate and would benefit from consolidation or namespacing.
The set provides deep read/search coverage across Gmail, Slack, Calendar, LinkedIn, HubSpot, Obsidian, Twitter, and a graph store, with core write operations for calendar, drafts, Slack, and graph objects. Minor gaps exist—notably no calendar delete, no direct Gmail send to third parties (only drafts), and no LinkedIn post/message actions—but these appear deliberate and do not block typical workflows.