linkedin_get_profileRetrieve the authenticated LinkedIn member's basic profile details—name, email, picture—and their person URN to verify the connection.
Returns the authenticated member's basic profile (name, email, picture) and their person URN. Use this to verify the connection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety. The description adds the specific return fields and the purpose (verification), which is useful context beyond the annotations. It doesn't contradict annotations, but it doesn't mention rate limits or auth requirements; acceptable for a simple read.
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?
Two sentences with zero waste. Front-loads what the tool returns, then gives the purpose. No unnecessary details or fluff.
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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value (basic profile fields and URN) and the intended use case. It could specify that these are the only fields returned, but 'basic profile' implies a defined set. Sufficient for an agent to call correctly.
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?
Tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per guidelines, baseline 4 applies when there are no parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter info; it correctly focuses on the return value.
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?
Clearly states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('authenticated member's basic profile'), and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, email, picture, person URN). No overlap with sibling tools (all post/organization related), so distinction is unambiguous.
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?
Provides an explicit use case: 'Use this to verify the connection.' This tells the agent when to invoke it. Since there are no alternative profile tools among siblings, explicit exclusion isn't necessary, though it could mention when not to use (e.g., for detailed profile data) – minor gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.