Linked API

check_connection_status

Read-only

Allows you to check the connection status between your account and another person (st.checkConnectionStatus action).

Linked API actions are queued into a cloud-browser workflow and may take several minutes. The server returns immediately after starting the workflow with {status: 'pending'|'running', pendingReason, workflowId, operationName, message}. To retrieve the final result, call get_workflow_result with the returned workflowId and operationName — it will long-poll until completion or the request budget elapses, then return either the final result or another in-progress snapshot. Do not retry the original tool while a workflow is still running; that creates duplicate queued work.

A pending workflow carries pendingReason: 'queued' means it is waiting its turn behind other work on the same account and will start within minutes. 'outsideWorkingHours' means the account has configured working hours and the workflow is parked until they reopen — possibly the next working day. In that case get_workflow_result returns immediately instead of polling, message states when the window opens, and you should report that to the user rather than looping.

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": {
      "personUrl": "<personUrl>"
    },
    "name": "check_connection_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`personUrl`	Yes	Public or hashed LinkedIn URL of the person you want to check the connection status with. (e.g., 'https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-doe')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Even with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint supplied, the description goes well beyond them: it discloses asynchronous queueing via a cloud-browser workflow, the immediate return shape, the meaning of pendingReason values 'queued' and 'outsideWorkingHours', and the duplicate-work hazard of retrying. That outsideWorkingHours case — workflow parked until the next working day, get_workflow_result returning immediately, report to the user instead of looping — is behavior no annotation or schema field communicates.

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?

Structure is logical: purpose, then async mechanics, then retrieval path, then the pendingReason cases. It is on the long side and repeats 'workflow' terminology heavily, but nearly every sentence carries operational information an agent needs, so little is wasted.

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?

For an async tool with no output schema, the description compensates well by spelling out the immediate return fields, the pendingReason states, and the follow-up call. The only missing piece for full completeness is the relationship to the other connection-listing tools, which would help the agent choose correctly.

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% and the single personUrl parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the description does not need to re-explain it. It adds no formatting or lookup nuance (public vs. hashed URL handling) beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource: check the connection status between your account and another person, with a concrete backing action (st.checkConnectionStatus). It is clearly a single-person status check rather than a bulk listing, but it never names the adjacent listing tools (retrieve_connections, retrieve_pending_requests) they might be confused with.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Strong workflow guidance exists — call get_workflow_result with workflowId and operationName, and do not retry the original tool while a workflow is running. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus siblings like retrieve_connections or retrieve_invitations, which is the main selection gap an agent faces.

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

All Linked API 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.