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

@zients/line-mcp-server

by zients
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Push Text Message

push_text_message

Send text messages to LINE users, groups, or rooms with target ID prefixes U, C, R; defaults to environment variable if no ID provided.

Instructions

Send a text message to a LINE user, group, or room. Target ID prefixes: User="U", Group="C", Room="R".

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": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "push_text_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.
textYesMessage text to send

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It does not mention side effects (e.g., message delivery), rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential errors. The fallback to DEFAULT_UID is present in the schema but not expanded in the description.

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, with two sentences that front-load the core action and target. No redundant or filler content.

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?

For a simple messaging tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient to understand the primary function. It could benefit from a hint about when to use this over other push types, but overall it is adequately complete given the low complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds no new semantic information about 'to' or 'text' beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 text message) and the target types (user, group, or room), which distinguishes it from other push_* tools. The prefix details reinforce the target specificity.

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 implies usage by specifying the action and target types, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools like push_image_message or push_flex_message. It lacks guidance on when text messaging is preferred over other content types.

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