Skip to main content
Glama
EgiStr

linkedin-mcp

by EgiStr

Get LinkedIn Connections

linkedin_get_connections
Read-onlyIdempotent

List authenticated user's LinkedIn 1st-degree connections with pagination, returning member ID, name, and profile URL. Adjust start and count to page through results.

Instructions

Get the authenticated user's LinkedIn connections.

Lists your 1st-degree connections with pagination support.

Args:

  • start (number): Start index for pagination (default: 0)

  • count (number): Number of connections to return, max 50 (default: 10)

  • response_format ('markdown' | 'json'): Output format (default: 'markdown')

Returns (JSON format): { "total": number, "count": number, "start": number, "has_more": boolean, "connections": [{ "id": string, // Member ID "name": string, // Display name "profileUrl": string // LinkedIn profile URL }] }

⚠️ NOTE: Connections API requires LinkedIn Partner Program access. Standard OAuth apps will receive an error message explaining the limitation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNoNumber of connections to return (max 50)
startNoStart index for pagination
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' for human-readable or 'json' for machine-readablemarkdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already state readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: pagination behavior via start/count/has_more and the critical Partner Program limiation that standard OAuth apps will receive an error. This is genuinely useful risk disclosure.

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 is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but the return-shape example and the Partner Program caveat ear their place, keeping the overall definition compact and scannable.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only, non-destructive tool with no output schema, the description provides the return JSON shape, pagination fields, defaults, and a critical access limiation. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with defaults, constraints, and descriptions, so the description's Args section mostly repeats schema information. Baseline 3 is appropriate because schema coverage is 100% and the description adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the authenticated user's LinkedIn connections,' and immediately clarifies it lists '1st-degree connections.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_posts or search_people by naming the exact data set being returned.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description clearly frames when this tool is appropriate: when you need the authenticated user's 1st-degree connections, with pagination. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the top tier, but the context is unambiguous.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/EgiStr/linkedin-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server