LinkedIn MCP
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@LinkedIn MCPfind a LinkedIn profile for John Smith"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
LinkedIn MCP
This is a simple implementation of an MCP LinkedIn server using a Selenium and Chromedriver based scraper in the background.
At the moment it only support profile scraping and profile search.
Pre-requisites
Please install uv.
Create a virtual environment and sync the libraries.
uv venv
uv syncThen install Chromedriver: https://developer.chrome.com/docs/chromedriver/get-started
The whole parsing of the LinkedIn webpage is based on Chromedriver.
Related MCP server: LinkedIn MCP Server
Environment
Make sure you have all of these variables in your .env file:
LINKEDIN_USER_1=<user>
LINKEDIN_PASSWORD_1=<pass>
LINKEDIN_USER_2=<user>
LINKEDIN_PASSWORD_2=<pass>
COOKIE_DIR=/var/linkedin/cookies
MCP_HOST=0.0.0.0
MCP_PORT=8050
# Either sse or stdio or streamable-http
MCP_TRANSPORT=streamable-http
MCP_TIMEOUT=150You can use multiple LinkedIn username and password combinations.
Run in dev mode with MCP Inspector
mcp dev ./src/linkedin_mcp/server/server.pyRun with stdio
python ./src/linkedin_mcp/client/client_stdio.pyRun the server
uv run ./src/linkedin_mcp/server/server.pyNote: If you're experiencing issues with code changes not being picked up, clear the Python cache first:
# Windows PowerShell
.\clear_cache.ps1
# Or manually:
Get-ChildItem -Path . -Filter __pycache__ -Recurse -Directory | Remove-Item -Recurse -ForceThen restart the server. Alternatively, use Python's -B flag to skip bytecode generation:
uv run python -B ./src/linkedin_mcp/server/server.pyIntegration with Gemini CLI
This is a modified .settings.json of the Gemini CLI with which you can use for connecting and using the MCP:
{
"general": {
"preferredEditor": "vscode"
},
"security": {
"auth": {
"selectedType": "gemini-api-key"
}
},
"ui": {
"theme": "Default"
},
"mcpServers": {
"linkedin-scraper": {
"httpUrl": "http://0.0.0.0:8050/mcp/",
"transport": "streamable-http"
}
}
}Available Tools
2 toolslinkedin_profileA
Extract a LinkedIn profile using web scraping with Selenium.
Args:
profile: The LinkedIn profile URL or username
extract_educations: If True, extract educations
extract_skills: If True, extract skills
extract_interests: If True, extract the profile interests
Returns:
The LinkedIn profile as a dictionary
Example output in case of success:
{
"given_name": "Gil",
"surname": "Fernandes",
"email": "gil-palma-fernandes@linkedin.com",
"cv": "A Software Engineer and data scientist with over 25 years of professional experience in different companies. I spent a good part of my professional career working in projects related to the aviation industry and the rest as developer in Talend and Java based projects.
In 2019 I commenced my learning on Artificial Intelligence and Deep Learning and related technologies and participated in several Kaggle competitions. I dedicate my weekends to my pet projects for UK charities which promote well-being and meditation.", "summary": "", "industry_name": "Software Engineer at Onepoint Consulting", "geo_location": "London Area, United Kingdom", "linkedin_profile_url": "https://www.linkedin.com/in/gil-palma-fernandes", "experiences": [ { "institution_name": "Onepoint Consulting · Full-time", "linkedin_url": "https://www.linkedin.com/company/309728/", "website": "", "industry": "", "type": "", "headquarters": "", ...
Example output in case of error:
{
"error": "Error extracting profile: Error extracting profile"
}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | Yes | ||
| extract_skills | No | ||
| extract_interests | No | ||
| extract_educations | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals it uses web scraping with Selenium, which implies network/browser behavior, and includes an error example showing possible failure. However, it does not disclose potential issues like login requirements, rate limiting, or blocking, so transparency is moderate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with Args, Returns, and examples, making it scannable. The example output is lengthy but informative; while it could be trimmed, it mostly earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates by detailing the return format with a comprehensive example and an error case. It covers all parameters but omits guidance on alternatives and edge-case behavior, making it largely complete but not exhaustive.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides plain-language explanations for all four parameters, directly mapping to schema properties. The example output illustrates the effect of extraction flags, which is critical given the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Extract' and resource 'LinkedIn profile', clearly stating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling 'profile_search' by focusing on extracting a specific profile, not searching.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a specific LinkedIn profile URL or username is available, as shown by the 'profile' parameter. However, it does not explicitly contrast with 'profile_search' or state when not to use this tool, leaving guidance only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
profile_searchA
Search for LinkedIn profiles by name.
Args: name: The name to search for
Returns: A list of LinkedIn profiles as dictionaries
Example output in case of success: [ { "person_name": "Gil Fernandes", "person_linkedin_url": "https://www.linkedin.com/in/gil-palma-fernandes/", "profile_id": "gil-palma-fernandes", "title": "Software Engineer at Onepoint Consulting" }, { "person_name": "Gil Fernandes", "person_linkedin_url": "https://www.linkedin.com/in/gil-fernandes-a7578334a/", "profile_id": "gil-fernandes-a7578334a", "title": "Passionate Holistic Therapist and Dynamic Team Leader with over 12 years of experience across diverse care settings. Skilled in crisis management and dedicated to fostering well-being in every aspect of care!" } ...
Example output in case of error: { "error": "Error searching profiles: Error searching profiles" }
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It goes beyond a simple summary by describing the return type ('a list of LinkedIn profiles as dictionaries') and providing both a success example and an error example, giving agents a clear picture of expected behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-organized with an intro line, Args, Returns, and examples. The success example is somewhat lengthy due to a very long title string, but it still earns its place by illustrating the exact output structure. Overall, it is efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter search tool, the description covers the core requirements: what it does, what parameter to pass, and what output to expect (both success and error formats). It lacks advanced details like pagination or empty-result behavior, but these are not critical for this low-complexity tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only provides the parameter title 'Name' with no description. The tool description compensates fully by explaining 'name: The name to search for' in the Args section, adding the essential meaning that the schema lacks.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('LinkedIn profiles') with a scoping qualifier ('by name'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'linkedin_profile', which likely targets a single profile rather than name-based search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly conveys when to use this tool: when you need to find LinkedIn profiles by a person's name. It provides clear context, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
TDQS
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one extracts a full profile from a URL or username, while the other searches for profiles by name. There is no overlap or ambiguity in their intended use.
The tool names do not follow a consistent verb_noun pattern. 'linkedin_profile' is a noun phrase, while 'profile_search' places the verb at the end. This is a minor inconsistency, but both names are descriptive and readable.
With only 2 tools, the server feels slightly thin for a comprehensive LinkedIn integration. However, the two tools cover the core search-and-retrieve workflow, so the count is borderline appropriate for a focused profile-scraping server.
The tool set covers the main workflow of finding a profile via search and then retrieving its full details. Missing features like connections or posts are not critical for the apparent purpose of profile extraction, so the coverage is solid with only minor gaps.
Maintenance
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
Hosted MCP server for LinkedIn: 31 tools for profiles, search, messaging, posts, enrichment.
Managed LinkedIn MCP server for AI agents: search, connect, message and enrich on accounts you own.
MCP server for LeadDelta — manage LinkedIn connections and CRM data via AI assistants.
LinkedIn outreach MCP server — 19 tools for AI agents to prospect, sequence, and manage contacts.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseDqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that provides access to the LinkedIn Bulk Data Scraper API and various utility tools for data extraction and processing.26MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server for LinkedIn automation that enables users to search for jobs, retrieve profile details, manage connections, and read or send messages. It leverages Playwright and Browserbase to interact with LinkedIn through an existing authenticated browser session.6151MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceFully featured MCP server that provides automation tools for LinkedIn, supporting browser-based scraping and API-based operations for content management, media uploads, and reactions.63MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceMCP server for programmable LinkedIn automation via Playwright, offering 20 tools for profile management, messaging, feed interaction, and job searching through real browser automation.29MIT
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
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/rcreech93/linkedin_mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server