HeyLead

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

profile

Destructive

View and restore LinkedIn profile change history. Track edits by field and revert any change to keep your profile accurate.

Instructions

View and restore LinkedIn profile change history.

Every profile edit is tracked so you can see what changed and roll back
if needed.  Supported fields: headline, summary, photo, cover_photo,
custom_link, location, skills, experience.

Args:
    action: What to do:
        "history"  — List recent profile changes (default)
        "restore"  — Revert a specific change by its ID
        "current"  — Show current cached profile snapshot
    field: Filter history by field name (e.g. "headline", "summary", "photo",
        "cover_photo", "custom_link", "location", "skills", "experience"). Optional.
    change_id: The change ID to restore (required for "restore" action).
    limit: Max number of history entries to show (default 20).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`field`	No
`limit`	No
`action`	No	history
`change_id`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.10.375Sep 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, signaling mutating and potentially destructive behavior. The description adds context by explaining that profile edits are tracked and can be rolled back, and by outlining the restore action. It does not explicitly warn that restoring overwrites the current profile irreversibly, but the destructive annotation covers the main risk, so the description adequately complements the annotations.

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?

The description opens with a concise one-line purpose, followed by a short explanatory sentence, the supported-fields list, and a clearly formatted Args block. Every part is functionally useful and there is no fluff. The Args block is somewhat long, but that is justified for a tool with four parameters and multiple actions.

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

Completeness4/5

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

All four parameters are explained, including defaults, allowed action values, and the condition requiring change_id. An output schema exists, so return-value details are unnecessary. The description does not discuss explicit side effects beyond the destructiveHint annotation or address pagination beyond the limit parameter, but it provides enough information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It does so thoroughly: action is described with its three allowed values, field is illustrated with concrete examples, change_id is marked as required for restore, and limit has its default stated. This fully compensates for the absent schema descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'View and restore LinkedIn profile change history,' which clearly identifies the tool's domain. It lists supported fields and three concrete actions (history, restore, current), making it easy for an agent to distinguish it from profile-editing tools like setup_profile, even though no sibling is explicitly named.

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 action descriptions provide concrete use cases: 'history' to list changes, 'restore' to revert by change ID, and 'current' to show the cached snapshot. The description also notes that change_id is required for restore. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or point to alternatives like setup_profile for editing, so usage guidance is implied rather than fully explicit.

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