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

@zients/line-mcp-server

by zients
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Push Sticker Message

push_sticker_message

Send a LINE sticker to a specific user, group, or room using sticker package and sticker IDs.

Instructions

Send a LINE sticker. See LINE sticker list for valid packageId/stickerId.

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": {
      "packageId": "<packageId>",
      "stickerId": "<stickerId>"
    },
    "name": "push_sticker_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNoTarget ID — User ID (U…), Group ID (C…), or Room ID (R…). If omitted, falls back to the DEFAULT_UID environment variable.
packageIdYesSticker package ID
stickerIdYesSticker ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It mentions the sticker requirement and the fallback for 'to' via schema description, but it does not disclose return values, potential errors, or side effects beyond sending.

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, using a single sentence and a short reference to the sticker list. No unnecessary words or repetitive information.

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?

Given the simplicity of a push action and lack of output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the essential action and points to the sticker list for valid IDs. It does not explain return values, but for this tool type that may not be essential.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema descriptions cover all three parameters (100% coverage). The 'to' parameter is well explained with the fallback to DEFAULT_UID. 'packageId' and 'stickerId' are briefly described but the main description adds the 'See LINE sticker list' context, making them understandable.

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 LINE sticker') with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from other 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The description does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., broadcast or multicast message tools). The name 'push' implies a single recipient, but this is not stated. However, the sibling list provides some implicit context.

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