Linked API

reply_to_comment

Reply to a comment by commentUrl; returns the reply's URN and URL. If this workflow is still running, do not retry this tool; retrying can post duplicate replies.

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>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "reply_to_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	Reply text, must be up to 1000 characters.
`commentUrl`	Yes	LinkedIn URL of the comment to reply to.

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 say readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: the action is queued into a cloud-browser workflow, may take several minutes, returns immediately with a {status, pendingReason, workflowId, operationName, message} envelope, and that retrying risks duplicate replies. It also decodes pendingReason values ('queued' vs 'outsideWorkingHours') and their timing implications, which is exactly the kind of context annotations 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?

The purpose and return values are front-loaded, which is good, but the retry warning appears twice ('do not retry this tool' in paragraph one and 'Do not retry the original tool while a workflow is still running' in paragraph two), and the second paragraph reads as generic async boilerplate. The pendingReason explanation earns its space; the duplication does not.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the lifecycle: immediate pending response, the retrieval path via get_workflow_result, the meaning of each pendingReason, and the correct user-facing action when work is parked outside working hours. Nothing needed to call or follow up correctly 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%, so both parameters are already documented (including the 1000-character limit on text). The description only restates that the reply is keyed on commentUrl and adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Reply to a comment by commentUrl') and even declares the return values (reply URN and URL), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the related siblings comment_on_post or react_to_comment, so differentiation is left to inference from the resource name.

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 clear operational guidance: do not retry while a workflow is running (duplicate replies), and call get_workflow_result with the returned workflowId/operationName to retrieve the result. It also tells the agent what to do when pendingReason is 'outsideWorkingHours' — report the window to the user rather than looping. It lacks guidance on when to prefer this over comment_on_post.

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.