Taplio for LinkedIn

Send connection request

send_connection_request

Idempotent

Ask to connect with someone on LinkedIn, by their public username (the last part of their profile url). The invitation is not sent during this call: it joins the account's send queue, which paces invitations to keep the account safe, so scheduled_for in the response says when it is due to go out, minutes away or much later. Asking again for someone already queued returns that same pending request instead of sending a second invitation, so it is safe to retry. If it turns out they are already connected, or already hold an invitation from this account, nothing is sent and a later get_connection_request comes back as skipped with the reason. The invitation carries no note: LinkedIn caps noted invitations far lower than plain ones, so a plain one is far likelier to land. Requires the Enterprise plan; a lower plan answers insufficient_plan. cancel_connection_request can stop it before it is sent.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`username`	Yes	The recipient's LinkedIn public username, e.g. 'jane-doe' from linkedin.com/in/jane-doe.

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?

Goes well beyond the annotations: the invitation is queued and paced rather than sent immediately, scheduled_for reports the due time, repeat calls are deduplicated, already-connected or already-invited targets silently skip, and no note is attached by design. This is consistent with idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, and it discloses the async queue semantics an agent could not otherwise infer.

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?

Purpose and identifier are front-loaded, and every sentence carries real information (queue pacing, dedup, skip behavior, no-note policy, plan gate). It is dense for five sentences, and the Enterprise plan requirement buried near the end would be more useful up front.

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, plan-gated, deduplicating mutation, the description covers the prerequisites, the side effects, the skip cases, and how to observe the outcome; the output schema already documents return fields like scheduled_for. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 parameter is well documented in the schema with the same 'jane-doe' example. The description's parenthetical restates that guidance rather than adding new syntax or format rules, so the 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 ('Ask to connect with someone on LinkedIn') and disambiguates the single parameter's meaning ('public username, the last part of their profile url'). The naming of cancel_connection_request and get_connection_request makes clear this is the initiation step, not the cancel or status step.

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 context: safe to retry (duplicates return the same pending request), plan prerequisite (Enterprise, else insufficient_plan), and the alternative to use for stopping it (cancel_connection_request). It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g., for people already connected handled implicitly), so it falls just short of fully explicit routing.

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.