Taplio for LinkedIn

Cancel queued connection request

cancel_connection_request

DestructiveIdempotent

Cancel a connection request before it is sent, so the invitation never reaches LinkedIn. Returns the request with status cancelled and a failure_reason. A request that was already sent, skipped, failed or cancelled, or is being sent is refused with connection_not_cancellable, whose reason says which: tell the user it can no longer be cancelled rather than retrying. A username this account never asked to connect with answers connection_not_found.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`username`	Yes	The recipient's LinkedIn public username, the same one send_connection_request was called with.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`message`	No
`username`	Yes
`created_at`	Yes
`failure_code`	No
`scheduled_for`	No
`failure_reason`	No
`skipped_reason`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 2, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / skipped_reason
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

changedOutput schema / properties / status / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "pending",
-  "sent",
-  "failed",
-  "cancelled"
-]New value: +[
+  "pending",
+  "sent",
+  "skipped",
+  "failed",
+  "cancelled"
+]

First observedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the return shape (status cancelled plus failure_reason) and the exact error codes connection_not_cancellable and connection_not_found, including what each means and how the agent should respond. The annotations already cover mutation/destructive/idempotent traits, and the description adds rich behavioral context on top.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by return behavior and failure modes. Every sentence adds actionable information with no repetition.

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?

Complete for a one-parameter mutation tool with an output schema: the description covers scope, return status, error semantics, and retry guidance, while annotations and schema handle safety and input details.

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 coverage is 100%, and the single username parameter is already documented as the recipient's LinkedIn public username matching send_connection_request. The description references username only indirectly through error cases, so it adds little parameter meaning 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.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a precise verb and resource ('Cancel a connection request') and adds the critical scope ('before it is sent, so the invitation never reaches LinkedIn'). This clearly distinguishes it from send_connection_request and get_connection_request without needing the 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?

Explicitly defines the valid window (before sending) and enumerates the states where cancellation is refused, with a clear instruction not to retry. It does not, however, name an alternative tool for inspecting or handling already-sent requests, so it stops short of full when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance.

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

All Taplio for LinkedIn 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.