Profile services
get_api_v1_profile_servicesGet profile services by URN Group: Profile. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| urn | No |
linkdapi-the-best-linkedin-professional-data-api
by com.jojapi
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description is solely responsible for disclosing behavior. It adds a billing note ('Billing per call: 1 Credits') which is useful, but it omits other relevant context such as authentication requirements, read-only nature, pagination, or error cases, leaving the agent underinformed.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with the core action and an appended billing note. It is concise and avoids unnecessary verbosity, earning full marks for efficiency.
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?
Even for a simple read endpoint, the description leaves ambiguity about what 'profile services' entails and how it differs from service detail endpoints. There is no mention of response structure, potential errors, or usage context, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
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?
The schema describes one parameter 'urn' with no description and zero required fields. The description's 'by URN' minimally flags this parameter's purpose, but with 0% schema coverage, more compensation is needed—such as format, source of URN, or constraints—which is absent.
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 'Get profile services by URN' provides a clear verb and resource, and it clarifies the lookup key. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_api_v1_services_service_details or other profile sub-endpoints, so it stops short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided—no indication of when to use this tool versus search_services or other profile endpoints, no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or intended scenarios. It simply states the primary action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools target distinct resources (profiles, posts, companies, jobs), but there is notable overlap among profile-related endpoints (about, overview, details, full) and company insights vs. employees_data vs. insights. An agent could struggle to pick the right one without reading fine-grained descriptions.
Naming Consistency3/5
The naming follows a consistent snake_case pattern starting with 'get_api_v1_', making it predictable. However, there are typos ('siilar', 'campany'), mixed terms (lookup vs. search vs. get), and extremely long redundant prefixes that reduce clarity, though the overall style is uniform.
Tool Count2/5
With 50 tools, this is well above the 25-tool threshold, making the surface feel heavy and overwhelming. While the domain is broad (LinkedIn data), many endpoints could be consolidated (e.g., profile about/overview/details/full) to reduce the count without losing functionality.
Completeness4/5
For a read-only LinkedIn data API, the coverage is quite comprehensive: profiles, posts, companies, jobs, searches, geos, skills, and services are all represented. Obvious gaps are minimal—only a few advanced search filters or batch operations could be missing, but core data retrieval is well covered.