Linked API

comment_on_post

Allows you to leave a comment on a post (st.commentOnPost action); returns the comment's URN and URL. If this workflow is still running, do not retry this tool; retrying can post duplicate comments.

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "comment_on_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	Comment text, must be up to 1000 characters.
`postUrl`	No	The LinkedIn post URL to comment on (e.g., 'https://www.linkedin.com/posts/username_activity-id') Provide this or postUrn.
`postUrn`	No	URN of the post to comment on, as an alternative to postUrl. (e.g., 'urn:li:activity:1234567890123456789')
`companyUrl`	No	LinkedIn company page URL. If specified, the comment will be added on behalf of the company. (e.g., 'https://www.linkedin.com/company/acme-corp')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds a great deal beyond that: the action is queued into a cloud-browser workflow, the server returns an in-progress snapshot shape {status, pendingReason, workflowId, operationName, message}, retries create duplicate comments, 'queued' vs 'outsideWorkingHours' pendingReasons behave differently, and the working-hours case can park until the next business day. For an open-world mutation this is exactly the context an agent needs.

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?

Purpose and return values are front-loaded, which is good, but the do-not-retry warning is stated twice almost verbatim across paragraphs one and two, and the pendingReason taxonomy, while useful, is verbose enough to bury the calling instructions. Roughly a third of the text is repetition.

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?

For an asynchronous, queued, open-world mutation this covers everything material: how the call returns, how to retrieve the result, why retrying is dangerous, and how the unusual working-hours state should be surfaced to the user. Return values are described despite there being no output schema.

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 the schema already documents text length, postUrl vs postUrn as alternatives, and companyUrl's on-behalf-of semantics. The description adds nothing parameter-specific (no clarification of which identifier wins if both are supplied). Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('leave a comment on a post') plus the underlying action name (st.commentOnPost) and the primary return values (URN and URL). It is clearly distinct from siblings like react_to_post or create_post, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with reply_to_comment or react_to_comment, which occupy adjacent space.

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?

Gives an explicit follow-up path: call get_workflow_result with workflowId and operationName instead of retrying, and explains that a workflow may take minutes. It also says what to do with an 'outsideWorkingHours' pendingReason (report to the user, don't loop). It does not address when to prefer this over reply_to_comment or a company-page variant.

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.