Skip to main content
Glama

LinkedNav

by io.github.linglistack
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Create lead

create_lead

Add one LinkedIn profile as a new contact in LinkedNav (the "Contacts" page, /app/contacts). In LinkedNav a lead and a contact are the same record (called a "prospect" once added to a campaign). Identical to create_contact. Skips silently if the profile already exists (dedup by LinkedIn URL).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNoThe lead's own comment on the post → {{comment}}. Leave empty for reactors (set engagerType:"reactor").
emailNoEmail address if known
intentNoFreeform note on why this lead was added / the intent signal. NOT the numeric "Intent Score" (that is auto-computed by LinkedNav).
listIdNoContact list ID to add this lead to (uses default list if omitted). Obtain list IDs via get_lists.
companyNoCurrent company name
headlineNoLinkedIn headline
icpScoreNoICP fit score 1-10 from a signal agent, if known. NOT the auto-computed Intent Score.
industryNoIndustry
jobTitleNoJob title / position
lastNameYesLast name
locationNoLocation (city, country, etc.)
firstNameYesFirst name
followUp1NoPer-lead 1st follow-up that OVERRIDES the campaign follow-up-1 template for this lead only.
followUp2NoPer-lead 2nd follow-up that OVERRIDES the campaign follow-up-2 template for this lead only.
followUp3NoPer-lead 3rd follow-up that OVERRIDES the campaign follow-up-3 template for this lead only.
icpReasonNoShort reason for the ICP score (a few words).
profileUrlYesFull LinkedIn profile URL (e.g. https://linkedin.com/in/jane-doe)
providerIdNoLinkedIn member/provider id (ACo…/ACw…) if known — e.g. the "providerId" returned by search_people. Stored as the canonical send handle so the lead stays sendable even if its URL is imperfect; only a well-formed member id is kept. A Sales Navigator id (ACw…) is kept only as a backup — invites resolve the profile URL first.
engagerTypeNoHow they engaged with the post: "commenter" (wrote a comment) or "reactor" (only liked/reacted). Powers {{action}} and lets one template fit both — {{comment}} is auto-blanked for reactors.
sourcePostUrlNoLinkedIn post URL that triggered this lead
connectMessageNoPer-lead connection-request note that OVERRIDES the campaign connect template for this lead only. Blank/omitted = use the campaign message.
sourcePostDateNoISO date the post was published → {{postDate}} (rendered as M/D).
welcomeMessageNoPer-lead welcome message (sent right after they accept) that OVERRIDES the campaign welcome template for this lead only.
sourcePostAuthorNoDisplay name of the author of the post they engaged with → {{postAuthor}} (e.g. the influencer or competitor).
sourcePostExcerptNoShort snippet of the post they engaged with → {{postText}}.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only show readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important context beyond annotations: dedup by LinkedIn URL, silent skip on duplicates, and the semantic mapping of lead/contact/prospect. Lacks detail on permissions or side effects like campaign enrollment.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 25 parameters covered fully by schema descriptions and no output schema, the description provides the essential conceptual context (lead=contact, dedup, silent skip) that an agent needs to use the tool correctly. Missing return behavior, but no output schema exists to carry that.

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 the schema already provides rich parameter documentation. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema covers. 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?

Specific verb+resource ('Add one LinkedIn profile as a new contact in LinkedNav') and clarifies the domain concept that lead=contact=prospect. Also explicitly names the sibling create_contact and states equivalence, which helps the agent route correctly.

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?

Mentions it is 'Identical to create_contact' and describes the dedup behavior ('Skips silently if the profile already exists'). However, it doesn't say when to prefer this over create_contact, create_leads_bulk, or add_lead_to_campaign.

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

All LinkedNav toolsInspect
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.

Resources