Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
linkedin-mcp

linkedin-mcp

by kyle-nelson-berkeley
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_profile

Get the LinkedIn profile's current values and person ID to enable accurate profile edit proposals.

Instructions

Fetch the owner's LinkedIn profile with GET /v2/me. Read-only — it cannot change anything. Use it to get the person id and current values before calling propose_edit.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_profile"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only — it cannot change anything,' which is the key behavioral trait an agent needs. It also mentions the HTTP method (GET), adding useful implementation context, though it does not discuss authentication or rate limits.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, no wasted words. The primary action and read-only guarantee are front-loaded, and the usage guidance is appended in a single clause. Every piece of information earns its place.

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 tool with no parameters and an output schema present, the description is complete: it names the resource, declares side-effect safety, and explains its role in the edit workflow. No missing information prevents an agent from calling it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies to 0-parameter tools; the description does not need to add parameter details and doesn't.

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 ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('the owner's LinkedIn profile'), and even includes the API endpoint (GET /v2/me). It also clarifies its role relative to a sibling ('before calling propose_edit'), effectively distinguishing it from the editing tool.

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?

It clearly states when to use this tool — 'get the person id and current values before calling propose_edit' — providing a concrete use case and sequence. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative access tools like auth_status, but its position in the edit workflow is implied.

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