line-bot-ops-mcp

line_push_text

Push a text message to a LINE user, group, or room using their ID. This action consumes the bot's monthly message quota.

Instructions

Send a text message to one user, group or room. Counts against the monthly message quota.

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": {
      "to": "<to>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "line_push_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	Yes	userId (U...), groupId (C...) or roomId (R...)
`message`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the write/network profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that the call consumes the monthly message quota, a cost/limit trait not in the annotations. It does not cover error behavior or delivery semantics.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action and target stated first and the quota caveat second. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a two-parameter, no-output-schema tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile, the description supplies what the agent needs: target scope and the quota cost. It stops short of noting the 5000-character cap or failure modes, but those are minor for this tool's complexity.

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 50%: 'to' is documented with ID prefixes, while 'message' carries only length constraints. The description adds little beyond calling it a 'text message', which marginally signals text-only content. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema already explains the key parameter.

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?

Specific verb (send) plus resource (text message) and scope (one user, group or room), which implicitly distinguishes it from the broadcast sibling. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation requires a small inference.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'one user, group or room' implies targeted sending rather than mass broadcast, which is implied guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus line_broadcast, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server