Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Linked API

by io.github.Linked-API
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

nv_remove_lead_from_list

Remove a lead from exactly one owned custom list, keeping it saved and in its other lists. Repeating an absent membership succeeds. English interface only. Plus required. Returns a workflow acknowledgement; use get_workflow_result with operationName nvRemoveLeadFromList.

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": {
      "personHashedUrl": "<personHashedUrl>",
      "listId": "<listId>"
    },
    "name": "nv_remove_lead_from_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
listIdYesOwned list ID as a string, never a number.
personHashedUrlYesPublic or hashed LinkedIn person URL, including /in/... and /sales/lead/... or an alert subject URL.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say it is a non-read-only, open-world tool; the description adds far more — that the action is asynchronous, that the server returns immediately with {status, pendingReason, workflowId, operationName}, and how to long-poll for the result. It also decodes pendingReason values ('queued' vs 'outsideWorkingHours') and tells the agent to surface the window to the user instead of looping, which is exactly the kind of behavior annotations cannot convey.

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?

The purpose comes first, followed by the async-workflow mechanics, which are the bulk of the text. The workflow boilerplate is lengthy and partially reiterated ("Do not retry the original tool" restates that re-invocation creates duplicate work), but each paragraph maps to a distinct decision the agent must make.

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 a two-parameter mutation that runs through a queued cloud-browser workflow, the description covers the full agent loop: start, pending states, retrieval via get_workflow_result, and out-of-hours behavior. No output schema exists, yet the acknowledgement shape is described inline, so nothing essential is missing.

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%, with both listId and personHashedUrl already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or validation detail for these two parameters beyond what the schema states.

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 a lead from exactly one owned custom list, keeping it saved and in its other lists" gives a specific verb (remove), resource (lead/list membership), and scope (exactly one owned list), while implicitly distinguishing it from nv_delete_list and nv_remove_account_from_list. The clarification that the lead stays saved elsewhere prevents confusion with nv_unsave_lead.

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 preconditions (English interface only, Plus plan required) and the idempotency rule ("Repeating an absent membership succeeds"), so the agent knows retry behavior for a missing membership. It also routes explicitly to get_workflow_result with the operationName and warns not to re-invoke the original tool while a workflow is running.

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

All Linked API toolsInspect
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