Zooq

profile_entity_id

Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve a public handle to the person entityId used by the live person endpoints (posts, comments, interests, lookalikes). Resolve once, reuse the id. (Costs 10 Zooq credits.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`handle`	Yes	Public profile handle — the part after linkedin.com/in/. A full profile URL works too.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`handle`	No	Example value was a string
`entityId`	No	Example value was a string

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: the 10 Zooq credits cost and the 'resolve once, reuse the id' pattern. It complements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 focused sentence followed by a short parenthetical note about cost and a reusable-id hint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundant content.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple one-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with a fully documented schema and an output schema, the description is complete. It includes the purpose, downstream use context, idempotency guidance, and cost warning. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description already explains what 'handle' means (the part after linkedin.com/in/ and a full URL works). The description does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a public handle to the person entityId used by the live person endpoints'. It distinguishes itself from sibling profile tools by explicitly naming the downstream live endpoints (posts, comments, interests, lookalikes), making its purpose unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: before calling live person endpoints. It also instructs 'Resolve once, reuse the id', which is practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of the highest bar.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Zooq tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have strongly overlapping purposes: companies_name_lookup is explicitly equivalent to search_companies, companies_enrich/companies_info/companies_universal_name_to_id all return company-profile data, and profile_full overlaps with profile_employment_history and profile_enrich. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent would still frequently have to choose between near-duplicate endpoints.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names mostly follow a predictable resource-prefixed snake_case pattern, such as companies_*, jobs_*, posts_*, profile_*, and search_*, which makes the set readable and groupable. Minor inconsistencies like jobs_details_v2, g_title_skills_lookup, and mixed noun suffixes (info/details/full/lookup) keep it from a perfect score.

Tool Count2/5

44 tools is well beyond the heavy 25+ band, and several tools appear to be different lookup modes or near-duplicates of the same underlying capability. The broad LinkedIn-style data domain explains much of the size, but the set still feels bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The API covers the core read-only professional-data workflows well: people, companies, jobs, posts, comments, likes, email discovery/verification, schools, skills, and targeted searches. Minor gaps exist, such as some job filters being unusable and no direct exposure of certain profile alias endpoints, but agents can generally complete end-to-end workflows.

Resources

Need Help?