@zients/line-mcp-server

Push Location Message

push_location_message

Send a location message to a LINE user, group, or room with title, address, and coordinates. Specify target ID or use default.

Instructions

Send a location message to a LINE user, group, or room.

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": {
      "title": "<title>",
      "address": "<address>",
      "latitude": "<latitude>",
      "longitude": "<longitude>"
    },
    "name": "push_location_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	Target ID — User ID (U…), Group ID (C…), or Room ID (R…). If omitted, falls back to the DEFAULT_UID environment variable.
`title`	Yes	Location title
`address`	Yes	Location address
`latitude`	Yes	Latitude
`longitude`	Yes	Longitude

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Sep 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without describing side effects, return values, error handling, or any behavioral nuances, which is minimal for a communication tool.

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?

A single, concise sentence that communicates the essential purpose without verbosity or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, but the absence of any output schema or mention of response/behavior leaves some ambiguity. Given the low complexity, this is acceptable but not fully complete.

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 schema descriptions for parameters are present and cover all fields (target ID, title, address, latitude, longitude). The description itself does not add extra context beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 a location message') and the target types ('user, group, or room'), making it distinct from sibling push_* tools like push_text_message or push_image_message.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The purpose is unambiguous, so an agent would know when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the sibling tools are self-evident.

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

Deploy Server