Reach MCP — LinkedIn for AI agents

accept_invitation

Idempotent

Accept a pending received connection request. Use to accept a received invitation (invitation_secret from list_received_invitations). Ask the user which ones.

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": "accept_invitation"
  }
}

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
`accepted`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds a real behavioral instruction ("Ask the user which ones"), indicating a confirmation step, but omits rate limits or irreversible side effects on LinkedIn. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no padding. The parenthetical invitation_secret reference is the one sentence that damages rather than earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

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, and annotations carry the idempotency/destructiveness profile. However, a mutation tool whose description identifies the wrong input field and never mentions the account scoping requirement is not fully complete for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description names "invitation_secret" as the input while the actual required parameters are account_id and linkedin_id_or_url. This mismatch points the agent at a parameter that does not exist (and additionalProperties: false would reject it), actively misleading rather than adding meaning.

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 opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ("Accept a pending received connection request"), which clearly separates it from send_invitation and withdraw_invitation. It lacks explicit sibling naming (e.g. decline_invitation), so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states when to use the tool and where the input originates ("invitation_secret from list_received_invitations"), which routes the agent correctly. It never states when not to use it or names decline_invitation as the alternative, so no exclusions are covered.

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

All Reach MCP — LinkedIn for AI agents 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?