linkedin_finderFind the email address associated with a LinkedIn profile URL. Extracts contact information from LinkedIn profiles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The LinkedIn profile URL | |
| webhook_url | No | Optional webhook URL to receive results asynchronously | |
| enrich_mobile | No | Whether to enrich with mobile phone data |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "data"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations but adds no behavioral detail beyond the basic extraction. It does not mention asynchronous behavior via webhook_url, optional mobile enrichment, rate limits, or any caveats about data availability.
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 concise, with the primary action front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a minor expansion from email to contact information but is not essential, so it loses a point.
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?
The tool has a rich schema, complete parameter descriptions, an output schema, and read-only/open-world annotations. Given those structured metadata sources, the description is mostly sufficient; the main gap is lack of guidance on choosing among similar siblings, which is already covered under usage guidelines.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters (url, webhook_url, enrich_mobile) already documented. The description provides no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('email address associated with a LinkedIn profile URL'), making the core purpose clear. The second sentence broadens it to 'contact information' but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like email_finder or mpp_linkedin_finder, so it does not fully earn a 5.
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?
The intended usage is implied: call this when you have a LinkedIn profile URL and need the associated email. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no comparison to alternative sibling tools such as email_finder or mpp_linkedin_finder.
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.