Linked API MCP

send_connection_request

Send a LinkedIn connection request to a person using their profile URL, with optional note and email to personalize the invitation.

Instructions

Allows you to send a connection request to a person (st.sendConnectionRequest action).

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
`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')
`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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 23, 2025

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'send a connection request' without disclosing behavioral traits like side effects, notifications, rate limits, or failure conditions. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it includes a redundant internal action reference 'st.sendConnectionRequest action' that adds no value.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no output schema and 3 parameters, the description is too minimal. It lacks information about the response format, error handling, or how this tool fits among many siblings. The agent would need additional context to use it effectively.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain the optional note's impact or the email requirement context.

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 clearly states the tool sends a connection request to a person, using a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like withdraw_connection_request. However, it could be more explicit about the platform (LinkedIn) and scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no usage guidance. It does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_connection_status or send_message. No prerequisites or contexts are mentioned.

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