Sends a text message to a LINE chat so you can deliver notifications or replies directly from your AI workflow.
(Beta) Sends a LINE text message to a chat.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "line_send_message"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.446Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the message is text-only and in beta, but says nothing about authentication/connection requirements, whether the message is sent as a user or a bot, delivery failure behavior, rate limits, or irreversibility of sending.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the '(Beta)' qualifier is placed first so stability context is seen immediately. It is efficient rather than padded, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true concision.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a send/mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an empty parameter schema, the description should at minimum clarify the connection prerequisite and how the destination chat and body are determined. As written, an agent cannot tell how to invoke it correctly beyond knowing the channel.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema is empty (0 parameters, no properties), and the description does not explain how the target chat or the message content are supplied at all. For a send operation, that leaves the core input semantics unresolved even though the nominal baseline for zero parameters would be higher.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Sends a LINE text message') and names the channel, which distinguishes it from the telegram_/whatsapp_/twilio_ send siblings. It is less clear about scope within the LINE family ('a chat' is unspecified), but the action itself is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus the generic 'send_message' or 'teams_send_message' siblings, and no note about prerequisites such as a connected LINE account (line_connect exists as a sibling). Only the parenthetical '(Beta)' hints at context, which is not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.