Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
linkedin-pilot

linkedin-pilot

by juanpacj-wq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

linkedin_browser_type

Types text into a specified LinkedIn field by reference, enabling automated form filling for profile edits and messaging.

Instructions

Escribe en un campo identificado por ref.

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": {
      "ref": "<ref>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "linkedin_browser_type"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refYes
textYes
submitNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses almost nothing: it does not explain that `ref` comes from a prior snapshot, whether the field must be focused first, or what the `submit` flag triggers (e.g. form submission/navigation). Only the bare mutation intent is implied.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. Size is appropriate; content is thin.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 3-parameter browser-automation primitive with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the definition is incomplete. An agent lacks the context needed to reliably obtain a `ref` or predict the effect of `submit`.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, and the description only alludes to `ref`. The `text` parameter and especially the optional `submit` boolean (whose default and side effects are unknown) receive no semantic explanation anywhere.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The Spanish description states a verb and a target ('Escribe en un campo') tied to the `ref` parameter, so the core action is inferable. However, it gives no scope or differentiation from the many sibling browser tools (click, snapshot, navigate), leaving the agent to guess when typing is the right primitive.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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 `linkedin_browser_click`, `linkedin_browser_navigate`, or `linkedin_browser_snapshot`. No prerequisites, no mention of needing a prior snapshot to obtain a valid `ref`, and no exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools