Fresh Linkedin Profile Data MCP Server

Get Company By Url

get_company_by_url

Retrieve detailed company information from LinkedIn using a company profile URL. Obtain key data points like industry, size, and employee count to enrich your analysis.

Instructions

1 credit per call.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "linkedin_url": "<linkedin_url>"
    },
    "name": "get_company_by_url"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`linkedin_url`	Yes	Example value: https://www.linkedin.com/company/apple/

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Sep 4, 2026

TDQS

D1.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it only discloses credit consumption. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects occur, or any auth, rate-limit, or error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short, but under-specification is not conciseness. A single cost sentence leaves no room for purpose or usage context, so it is not appropriately sized for the tool.

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

Completeness1/5

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

There is no output schema and no behavioral description, so an agent cannot know what is returned, how the URL format is constrained beyond the example, or how this tool differs from many sibling company-lookup tools. The one-line cost note is far from complete.

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%, and the required linkedin_url parameter already includes an example in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the structured input, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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

Purpose1/5

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

The description is only '1 credit per call,' which is a cost note and does not state a verb or resource. The tool's intended behavior must be inferred entirely from the name, so the description itself provides no purpose clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_company_by_domain or get_company_by_id. The description neither gives selection criteria nor excludes alternatives, leaving the agent without decision support.

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

Deploy Server