Taplio for LinkedIn

Get connection request

get_connection_request

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read back the latest connection request this account queued for a username: pending while it waits in the send queue, sent once it left, failed or cancelled with the reason otherwise. Someone who is already a connection, or who already has an invitation pending, reads as skipped, with skipped_reason saying which of the two it was — nothing was sent to LinkedIn and it cost the account no capacity. Use it to follow up on a send_connection_request. 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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, yet the description still adds substantial context: the full status vocabulary (pending/sent/failed/cancelled/skipped), what skipped_reason distinguishes, that nothing was sent to LinkedIn and no capacity was consumed, and the connection_not_found outcome.

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?

Front-loaded with the core read semantics, then statuses, then the follow-up guidance. Dense but every clause carries information; the skipped/account-capacity sentence is slightly long but earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the non-obvious states an agent would otherwise misread (skipped vs failed, connection_not_found). Nothing needed to call it 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains that username is 'the same one send_connection_request was called with'. The description only adds the not-found behavior, so it is a marginal increment over the structured field – baseline 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 ('Read back the latest connection request ... for a username') and implicitly scopes it to a single-request lookup, which separates it from list_connection_requests. The named lifecycle states make the resource identity 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?

Explicitly says 'Use it to follow up on a send_connection_request', giving the primary trigger. It stops short of naming list_connection_requests or cancel_connection_request as the alternatives an agent should prefer in other situations.

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.