Skip to main content
Glama

find_profile_by_linkedin

Read-onlyIdempotent

The public profile a LinkedIn profile or company URL belongs to (linkedin.com/in/… or /company/…), or null. LinkedIn only: profiles are never looked up by email.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "find_profile_by_linkedin"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesA LinkedIn URL, e.g. https://www.linkedin.com/in/ada

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's main added value is the miss case: it explicitly returns null when nothing matches, and accepts both /in/ and /company/ URL forms. It does not describe what the returned profile object contains, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the accepted URL types plus the return value are front-loaded. The phrasing is slightly tangled but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description says a 'public profile' or null is returned but never characterizes that object's shape or fields. The negative/positive scope and null behavior are present, but the return contract is only partially specified for an open-ended lookup.

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% and the single 'url' param is well documented with an example. The description still adds meaning beyond the schema by broadening the accepted form to company URLs, whereas the schema example only shows a personal /in/ URL.

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?

States the resource precisely (the public profile a LinkedIn /in/ or /company/ URL resolves to) and implies the lookup verb via 'belongs to'. It distinguishes itself from broader profile tools by scoping to LinkedIn URLs only, though the phrasing is grammatically awkward ('The public profile a LinkedIn profile ... belongs to').

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The sentence 'LinkedIn only: profiles are never looked up by email' gives a clear negative constraint that implicitly routes email-based lookups to search_profiles. However, no alternative tool is named and no positive when-to-use trigger (e.g. 'use when you already have a LinkedIn URL and want to resolve it to a profile') is stated.

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.