Linked API

react_to_comment

React to a comment by commentUrl (like, love, support, celebrate, insightful, funny). If this workflow is still running, do not retry this tool; retrying can queue duplicate reaction attempts.

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": {
      "commentUrl": "<commentUrl>"
    },
    "name": "react_to_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	No	Optional. Enum describing the reaction type. Defaults to "like".
`commentUrl`	Yes	LinkedIn URL of the comment to react to.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description goes far beyond them, disclosing that the action is queued into a cloud-browser workflow, returns immediately with a pending/running snapshot, and can take minutes. It explains pendingReason semantics ('queued' vs 'outsideWorkingHours'), warns that retries create duplicate queued reactions, and tells the agent to report the working-hours case to the user instead of looping.

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 is front-loaded in the first clause and the workflow explanation is organized logically by state. There is some redundancy: the 'do not retry' warning is stated twice (opening sentence and third paragraph), and a large block of generic workflow boilerplate is repeated around a very simple two-parameter action.

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, side-effecting tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed to call it and to handle the response: the immediate return shape, the follow-up tool and its arguments, the two pendingReason states, and the duplicate-work hazard. Nothing material about invocation behavior is left to inference.

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 the reaction enum and its 'like' default already documented in the schema. The description restates the allowed reaction values but adds no syntax, URL-format, or validation detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('React to a comment') plus the exact set of allowed reactions, and the required 'commentUrl' anchors it to the input. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like react_to_post and reply_to_comment without opening any schema.

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 strong operational guidance on when NOT to retry and explicitly routes the agent to get_workflow_result with the returned workflowId and operationName. It does not, however, contrast this tool with the closest alternatives (react_to_post, reply_to_comment), leaving that choice to the agent.

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.