Skip to main content
Glama

ZOOQ - LinkedIn Data for AI Agents

by io.github.baldiga

companies_insights

Read-onlyIdempotent

Employee-count total + distribution buckets (by department, seniority, location). Keyed by the numeric organization id: pass slug and Zooq resolves it for you at no extra credit cost, or pass id from companies_entity_id to skip the lookup. (Costs 10 Zooq credits.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoNumeric organization id from companies_entity_id; the urn:li:organization: form is accepted. An org_ id (dataset namespace, from companies_info) or a slug placed here is recognized and translated automatically. Provide `id` OR `slug`.
slugNoCompany public slug — the part after linkedin.com/company/ — or the full company URL. Resolved to `id` automatically at no extra credit cost. Any company identifier is accepted here and sorted by format (slug, URL, numeric id, org_ id). Provide `id` OR `slug`; `slug` is the simplest.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
groupsNoArray in the example
totalResultCountNoExample value was a number

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it costs 10 Zooq credits, slug resolution is free, and passing an id skips the lookup. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the primary value proposition appears in the first sentence, followed by identifier guidance and cost. 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.

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple two-optional-param tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the core purpose, identifier options, resolution behavior, and cost. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds a small amount of contextual guidance—mentioning credit cost and the companies_entity_id relationship—but largely restates what the schema already says.

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?

The description clearly identifies what the tool returns: employee-count total and distribution buckets by department, seniority, and location. It is specific enough to be distinguished from sibling tools by data type, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or contrast itself with tools like companies_employees_data or companies_info.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you need aggregate employee counts and distribution data for a company. It gives identifier guidance (slug vs id), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling tools or provide exclusions.

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

All ZOOQ - LinkedIn Data for AI Agents toolsInspect
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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are separated by domain prefixes and the descriptions are unusually explicit about differences, but there are direct overlaps: companies_name_lookup is the same upstream as search_companies, companies_entity_id vs companies_universal_name_to_id resolve different id spaces, and search_people/search_people_live plus search_companies/search_companies_live cover similar ground. An agent can usually pick correctly, but only after close reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set is consistently snake_case with readable domain prefixes like companies_, jobs_, posts_, profile_, and search_. Deviations include the unexplained g_* prefix, jobs_details_v2's version suffix, affiliate_program lacking a resource prefix, and the duplicate naming convention of companies_name_lookup vs search_companies.

Tool Count2/5

45 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and creates a heavy surface for an agent to scan. While the domains are broad, some tools are redundant (companies_name_lookup/search_companies) or tangential (affiliate_program), so the count is not fully justified.

Completeness4/5

The server covers people, companies, jobs, posts, email, schools, and skills with both search and detail endpoints, which is strong for a read-only LinkedIn API. Obvious gaps like a global post search or a company followers list are absent, but the existing paths support most workflows without dead ends.

Resources