LinkedIn MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

auth_refresh

Refresh an expired LinkedIn access token using a refresh token from the session or arguments, enabling uninterrupted API calls.

Instructions

Refresh access token using refresh token from session or argument.

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": "auth_refresh"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`client_id`	No
`client_secret`	No
`refresh_token`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the refresh token comes from session or argument; it does not mention whether the tool updates the session, what happens on invalid/expired refresh tokens, or any authentication or rate-limit considerations. This is a meaningful gap for an auth-mutating tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and easy to parse, though so terse that it omits necessary context beyond the core action.

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 an authentication tool with no annotations and three undocumented optional parameters, the description is too sparse. It lacks when to call, session update behavior, and parameter dependencies. The output schema covers return values, but the invocation context is incomplete.

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% and the description compensates only for refresh_token by stating it comes from session or argument. client_id and client_secret are left entirely unexplained — an agent cannot tell whether they are required, what they do, or how they interact with session defaulting.

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 names a specific verb (Refresh), a resource (access token), and the source of the refresh token (session or argument). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like auth_start and auth_set_access_token in function, though it doesn't name them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this tool is for refreshing an expired access token. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, no mention of when not to use it, and no prerequisites (e.g., must have a session or valid refresh token).

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