Linked API MCP

send_message

Send a direct LinkedIn message to a person by providing their profile URL and message text (up to 1900 characters). Deliver your message to any LinkedIn member instantly.

Instructions

Allows you to send a message to a person (st.sendMessage 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>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "send_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`personUrl`	Yes	LinkedIn URL of the person you want to send a message to (e.g., 'https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-doe')
`text`	Yes	The message text, must be up to 1900 characters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 23, 2025

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only repeats the action without mentioning side effects, authentication needs, or whether it opens a new conversation or replies to an existing one.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but lacks important structural information like parameter groupings or use cases.

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 the existence of a very similar sibling tool 'nv_send_message' and no output schema, the description fails to provide differentiating context or explain the outcome of sending a message.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented. However, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., constraints on message context or formatting).

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 action (sending a message) and the target (a person), but does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'nv_send_message' with a very similar name.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'nv_send_message' or when not to use it. Missing any context about prerequisites or limitations.

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