LinkedIn MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Send Message

send_message

Destructive

Send a direct message to a LinkedIn user by providing their username and message text. Requires confirmation to complete the write operation.

Instructions

Send a message to a LinkedIn user.

The recipient must be directly messageable from the profile page. This is a write operation when confirm_send is True.

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": {
      "linkedin_username": "<linkedin_username>",
      "message": "<message>",
      "confirm_send": "<confirm_send>"
    },
    "name": "send_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	Yes	The message text to send
`profile_urn`	No	Optional profile URN (e.g. ACoAAB...) to construct the compose URL directly. Providing this bypasses the Message-button lookup and is more reliable when available. Obtain via get_person_profile. Note: inbox may not always show all messages; use search_conversations as a fallback.
`confirm_send`	Yes	Must be True to send the message
`linkedin_username`	Yes	LinkedIn username of the recipient

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.22.0Aug 21, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint and openWorldHint), the description clarifies that the write happens only when confirm_send is True, which is a safeguard. It also adds the requirement for direct messageability. This extra context helps the agent understand the tool's behavior without relying solely on annotations.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that immediately state the purpose and key constraint. It front-loads the core function and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it easy for an agent to scan.

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 write operation, the description covers the essential behavioral prerequisites (messageability, confirm_send flag) and relies on the schema for parameter details. It does not mention authentication or output, but those are supplied by annotations and the presence of an output schema. The description is adequate for the 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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the tool description does not need to repeat them. It does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema gives, which is the baseline expectation.

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?

The description clearly states the action (send) and target (a LinkedIn user), with an important qualifier about direct messageability from the profile page. This establishes the tool's core purpose and differentiates it from read-only LinkedIn tools by explicitly labeling it a write operation.

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 description provides a prerequisite (the recipient must be directly messageable) and notes that the send only occurs when confirm_send is True, implicitly advising caution. However, it does not mention when to choose this tool over alternatives like connecting first or using the inbox, so guidance on context and exclusions is limited.

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