Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
linkedin-pilot

linkedin-pilot

by juanpacj-wq
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

linkedin_message

Send a direct LinkedIn message to a contact; requires confirm=true to proceed.

Instructions

Envía un mensaje directo a un contacto. Exige confirm=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": {
      "target": "<target>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "linkedin_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYes
targetYes
confirmNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the confirm=true requirement, which is non-obvious because the schema does not list confirm as required (only target and text are). However, it omits other important traits for an irreversible outbound action: auth prerequisites, rate limits, and consequences of omitting confirm.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the constraint. No wasted words, though it is arguably too sparse given the complexity of the operation.

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?

For an external, side-effecting message-send tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. It should specify the target format, auth requirement, irreversibility, and possibly rate limits to be callable with confidence.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It loosely covers target ("a un contacto") and the confirm requirement, but says nothing about the text parameter (the message body, up to 8000 chars) or the expected format of target (handle, URL, name?). The coverage gap is not filled.

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 states a specific verb+resource ("Envía un mensaje directo a un contacto"), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like linkedin_connect (connection request) or linkedin_post_comment (public comment). It does not explicitly name any sibling it must not be confused with, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 such as linkedin_connect or linkedin_post_comment, and no preconditions beyond the confirm flag. The agent must infer usage context entirely.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools