Reach MCP — LinkedIn for AI agents

salesnav_list_thread_messages

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a Sales Navigator thread with all its messages and participant profiles (salesApiMessagingThreads/{id}). Requires a Sales Navigator subscription. Use the thread id returned by salesnav_list_messaging_threads. message_count controls how many (most recent) messages are returned; compare with total_message_count in the response to know if more exist. Use to read one Sales Navigator thread (thread id from salesnav_list_messaging_threads); classic inbox threads use list_conversation_messages.

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>",
      "thread_id": "<thread_id>"
    },
    "name": "salesnav_list_thread_messages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`thread_id`	Yes	Sales Navigator thread ID.
`account_id`	Yes	Reach id of the LinkedIn account to act on, from list_accounts.
`message_count`	No	Number of most-recent messages to return.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Sales Navigator thread ID.
`archived`	No
`messages`	No
`participants`	No
`restrictions`	No
`unread_count`	No
`next_page_starts_at`	No	Unix ms timestamp — value from the oldest thread, used as page_starts_at cursor.
`total_message_count`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: the Sales Navigator subscription requirement and the message_count vs total_message_count pagination signal. It doesn't describe rate limits or auth failure behavior, but the pagination hint is the key operational detail.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose and useful, but the thread-id sourcing instruction is stated twice ('Use the thread id returned by salesnav_list_messaging_threads' and again 'thread id from salesnav_list_messaging_threads'), which is redundant filler in an otherwise tight blurb.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description completes the picture with the subscription requirement and the sibling routing. Only minor gaps (no mention of error/permission outcomes) remain.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), but the description goes further by explaining that message_count returns the most-recent messages and how to detect truncation via total_message_count. That is meaningful semantics beyond the schema's simple range/default.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch) and resource (a Sales Navigator thread with messages and participant profiles), and even cites the underlying endpoint. It distinguishes itself from the classic-inbox equivalent by naming list_conversation_messages as the alternative.

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?

Explicitly says to use the thread id returned by salesnav_list_messaging_threads, states the subscription prerequisite, and routes classic inbox threads to list_conversation_messages. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both 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?