Apex by LeadShark — discovery
Server Details
No-auth discovery endpoint for Apex by LeadShark — governed LinkedIn hands for AI agents.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- rzere/linkedin-mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored. Lowest: 3.4/5.
Each tool serves a unique role: product info, starter prompts, and setup instructions. No overlap in functionality.
All names use snake_case and are descriptive, but 'about_apex' and 'first_plays' deviate from a strict verb_noun pattern. Still, the naming is clear and consistent in style.
Three tools is exactly right for a discovery stub. Each tool addresses a specific need without excess.
For its purpose as a discovery stub, the tool set covers all necessary information: what the product is, how to start using it, and how to set it up. No gaps.
Available Tools
3 toolsabout_apexAbout ApexAInspect
Read-only: returns what Apex by LeadShark is, tier pricing, and the URL of the real authenticated MCP server. Call this first — this endpoint is a discovery stub with no LinkedIn powers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Describes itself as 'Read-only' and explicitly states it returns specific data (what Apex is, pricing, URL). With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits including the limited scope of the tool.
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?
Two sentences, both essential. Front-loaded with 'Read-only' and actionable guidance. No wasted words. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Although there is no output schema, the description explicitly lists what is returned (identity, pricing, URL). Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools, the description adequately covers its role as a starting point.
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?
No parameters exist in the schema (100% coverage by default). The description correctly does not add parameter information since none are needed. Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tool.
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 the tool returns 'what Apex by LeadShark is, tier pricing, and the URL of the real authenticated MCP server.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like first_plays and get_setup_steps by emphasizing it is a discovery stub with no LinkedIn powers.
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?
Explicitly says 'Call this first' and that it is a discovery stub. Provides a clear when-to-use and what not to expect (no LinkedIn powers). No alternatives mentioned but context implies this is the initial tool to invoke.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
first_playsFirst LoadoutsAInspect
Read-only: returns copy-paste starter prompts for the first session after connecting the real Apex server — verify, discover, enrich, act.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden and clearly declares 'Read-only', and describes the output as 'copy-paste starter prompts', adding behavioral context beyond the empty schema.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with 'Read-only', each part meaningful, though slightly verbose at 20 words.
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 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage timing, and output hint ('verify, discover, enrich, act').
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?
No parameters exist, so baseline 4 applies; description adds no parameter info but schema coverage is complete.
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 uses specific verb 'returns' and resource 'copy-paste starter prompts', clearly distinguishing it from siblings 'about_apex' and 'get_setup_steps'.
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?
Explicitly states usage context 'for the first session after connecting the real Apex server', providing clear guidance on when to use, though no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_setup_stepsGet setup stepsBInspect
The 5-step flow to connect an AI agent to the real Apex MCP server: LeadShark account → LinkedIn → 24h Apex unlock → mount MCP → first Loadout.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, data freshness, or side effects, leaving the agent uninformed about invocation impact.
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?
Single sentence is concise, though the list within could be formatted more clearly; still effectively front-loaded.
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 adequately explains what the tool returns (the 5 steps); complexity is low and coverage is sufficient.
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?
No parameters, so the description adds value by detailing the content of the steps; baseline 4 for no-parameter tools.
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 it provides a 5-step setup flow, distinguishing from siblings like about_apex and first_plays by focusing on the connection process.
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 explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, but it is implied for setup queries; no exclusions or alternative tool mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!