Skip to main content
Glama

remove_connection

Allows you to remove a person from your connections (st.removeConnection action). If this workflow is still running, do not retry this tool; retrying can queue duplicate removal attempts for the same person.

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": "remove_connection"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
personUrlYesPublic or hashed LinkedIn URL of the person you want to remove from your connections. (e.g., 'https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-doe')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
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 substantial behavior beyond that — the action is queued into a cloud-browser workflow, the server returns immediately with a pending/running snapshot, pendingReason 'queued' vs 'outsideWorkingHours' have different latency and polling consequences, and retrying causes duplicate queued removals. This is exactly the contextual layer structured fields cannot carry.

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 is front-loaded and the structure moves logically from action to async lifecycle to pendingReason semantics. However the anti-retry warning is stated twice in near-identical terms ("do not retry this tool; retrying can queue duplicate removal attempts" and "Do not retry the original tool while a workflow is still running; that creates duplicate queued work"), and the return-shape prose is dense for what it conveys.

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?

Covers the full async lifecycle for a mutation whose result is not returned inline, including all pendingReason branches and the exact recovery call — well beyond minimum for a one-parameter tool with no output schema. It stops short of stating whether removal is permanent/irreversible or what a failed workflow looks like, which are the remaining decisions an agent might need.

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 documented in the schema with an example, so the description adds no meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting. The description does not, for example, clarify what happens if the person is not currently a connection.

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 and resource: "remove a person from your connections (st.removeConnection action)". An agent can distinguish this from invitation-related siblings like send_connection_request or withdraw_connection_request without opening the schema. It does not explicitly name which sibling to prefer, but the scope is unambiguous.

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 when/when-not guidance for the async flow: do not retry while a workflow is running, call get_workflow_result with the returned workflowId/operationName to get the final result, and report 'outsideWorkingHours' to the user rather than polling. It does not address when to choose this tool over adjacent connection-management siblings, which is the only real gap.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.