LinkedIn MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Search People

search_people

Read-only

Find LinkedIn profiles by keywords, location, current company, or connection degree to identify and connect with relevant professionals.

Instructions

Search for people on LinkedIn.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`network`	No	Optional connection-degree filter. Each element is one of "F" (1st-degree), "S" (2nd-degree), "O" (3rd-degree and beyond). Example: ["F"] to only return 1st-degree connections. A single token ("F") or a comma-separated string ("F,S") is also accepted, for clients that cannot transmit an array.
`keywords`	Yes	Search keywords (e.g., "software engineer", "recruiter at Google")
`location`	No	Optional location filter (e.g., "New York", "Remote")
`current_company`	No	Optional current-employer filter. LinkedIn's currentCompany facet only filters on the numeric company URN id (e.g. "1115" for SAP); plain company names are accepted by the URL but ignored by LinkedIn and return the unfiltered result set. Look up a company's URN via get_company_profile -- it is exposed under references["about"]. For company-wide employee demographics (location/education/function breakdown) plus a slug-based lookup, use get_company_employees instead.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.26.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds nothing beyond them — no note on result limits, pagination, or filtering behavior. For a search tool with known facet quirks documented in the schema, the description contributes no behavioral context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight structure.

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?

Output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so return values and side effects need not be explained. However, with four parameters including non-obvious facets (network degree tokens, company URN requirement) and no routing against abundant siblings, the description is thinner than the tool's complexity warrants.

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 already explains keywords, network, location, and the current_company URN caveat. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a clear verb+resource ('search for people') and names the platform, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like search_companies, search_jobs, or get_person_profile, which is the only gap.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance in the description. The sibling list contains several overlapping search/filter tools (search_companies, get_company_employees, get_person_profile) that an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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