Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@zients/line-mcp-server

@zients/line-mcp-server

by zients
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Create Rich Menu

create_rich_menu

Create a rich menu for LINE Messaging API by submitting a JSON string. Define menu layout, actions, and areas to enhance user interaction.

Instructions

Create a new rich menu. Pass the rich menu object as a JSON string.

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": {
      "richMenu": "<richMenu>"
    },
    "name": "create_rich_menu"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
richMenuYesRich menu object as a JSON string

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'create', which implies mutation, but does not mention any requirements, side effects, or return behavior. For a create operation, important details like whether an ID is returned or what happens on validation failure are omitted.

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 minimal and front-loaded with the action. Two short sentences with no filler or redundancy. For a simple single-parameter tool, this level of conciseness is appropriate.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description should still clarify what the tool returns (e.g., created rich menu ID) and any constraints. It does not mention success/failure behavior, making it incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's contract.

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 description coverage is 100% since the parameter 'richMenu' is described as 'Rich menu object as a JSON string'. The description adds 'Pass the rich menu object as a JSON string', which essentially repeats the schema. It provides no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Create a new rich menu' with a specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_rich_menus, get_rich_menu, and delete_rich_menu by the verb 'create'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where a different rich menu operation would be more appropriate.

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