Linked API

send_connection_request

Allows you to send a connection request to a person (st.sendConnectionRequest action). If this workflow is still running, do not retry this tool; retrying can queue duplicate connection request 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": "send_connection_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Optional. Note to include with the connection request.
`email`	No	Optional. Email address required by some people for sending connection requests to them. If it is required and not provided, the connection request will fail.
`personUrl`	Yes	Public or hashed LinkedIn URL of the person you want to send a connection request to. (e.g., 'https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-doe')

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false/openWorldHint=true annotations, it discloses that work is queued into a cloud-browser workflow, may take minutes, returns an immediate pending snapshot, and that retries create duplicate queued attempts. It also explains pendingReason values ('queued' vs 'outsideWorkingHours') and how working-hours parking surfaces to the caller — all context 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded and the async workflow explanation is logically organized, but the 'do not retry while running' warning is stated twice and the pendingReason section is lengthy boilerplate. It could be tightened without losing information.

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?

With no output schema, the description still spells out the exact response shape ({status, pendingReason, workflowId, operationName, message}) and the follow-up retrieval path, which is everything an agent needs to drive a long-running queued operation correctly.

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 personUrl, note, and email are already fully documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own — notably it does not reinforce the email requirement gotcha that the schema mentions.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("send a connection request to a person") and even cites the underlying action (st.sendConnectionRequest). It is unambiguous against siblings like accept_invitation or withdraw_connection_request, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Strong conditional guidance is given for the async lifecycle: do not retry while a workflow is running, and call get_workflow_result with the returned workflowId/operationName to get the final result. It does not cover when to prefer this over adjacent actions (e.g., checking status first via check_connection_status), so it falls short of a 5.

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.