Reach MCP

remove_connection

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove an existing 1st-degree connection. Irreversible on LinkedIn (the person is not notified); confirm with the user. Not for pending invitations, see withdraw_invitation.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "account_id": "<account_id>",
      "linkedin_id_or_url": "<linkedin_id_or_url>"
    },
    "name": "remove_connection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`account_id`	Yes	Reach id of the LinkedIn account to act on, from list_accounts.
`idempotency_key`	No	Optional. A key you choose (a UUID is fine) that names this exact call. If you retry with the same key and the same arguments, the first call's result is returned and nothing is done twice on LinkedIn. Reusing a key with different arguments is refused. Keys expire after 24 hours.
`linkedin_id_or_url`	Yes	The LinkedIn member: profile URL, vanity name (the part after /in/), Sales Navigator URL, or internal member id.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`removed`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description still adds non-derivable context: the action is irreversible on LinkedIn, the other party is not notified, and user confirmation is required. It does not restate the idempotency/retry semantics, which the schema already carries.

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?

Three tight clauses with the core action first, the reversibility warning second, and the routing rule last. No filler and nothing an agent needs is buried.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, params are 100% schema-documented, and the description closes the two gaps an agent actually faces: safety/irreversibility and which sibling to use instead. Complete for this tool's complexity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (including the idempotency key) are already fully documented. The description adds no syntax or format hint beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

'Remove an existing 1st-degree connection' gives a precise verb + resource + scope, and the closing clause names the sibling it must not be confused with (withdraw_invitation for pending invitations). An agent can differentiate it from withdraw_invitation without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

States the exclusion explicitly ('Not for pending invitations, see withdraw_invitation') and adds a procedural precondition ('confirm with the user'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative routing an agent needs in a 50-tool namespace.

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

All Reach MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?