Skip to main content
Glama
piekstra

Slack MCP Server

by piekstra

add_reaction

Add an emoji reaction to a Slack message by specifying the channel, message timestamp, and emoji name.

Instructions

Add a reaction emoji to a message.

Args: channel: Channel ID where the message exists timestamp: Timestamp of the message emoji_name: Name of the emoji (without colons)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
channelYes
timestampYes
emoji_nameYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler function for 'add_reaction' that wraps the SlackClient method and handles JSON serialization/error response.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def add_reaction(channel: str, timestamp: str, emoji_name: str) -> str:
        """
        Add a reaction emoji to a message.
    
        Args:
            channel: Channel ID where the message exists
            timestamp: Timestamp of the message
            emoji_name: Name of the emoji (without colons)
        """
        try:
            client = SlackClient()
            result = await client.add_reaction(channel, timestamp, emoji_name)
            return json.dumps(result, indent=2)
        except Exception as e:
            return json.dumps({"error": str(e)}, indent=2)
  • SlackClient helper method that makes the actual Slack API POST request to the 'reactions.add' endpoint.
    async def add_reaction(self, channel: str, timestamp: str, name: str) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """Add a reaction to a message."""
        data = {"channel": channel, "timestamp": timestamp, "name": name}
        return await self._make_request("POST", "reactions.add", json_data=data)
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool adds a reaction (implying a write operation) but doesn't mention permission requirements, rate limits, whether reactions are reversible, or what happens if the emoji_name is invalid. The description lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation 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?

The description is perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a well-organized parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting with 'Args:' makes it easy to parse. No wasted words or redundant 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?

For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description does well by explaining all parameters and the basic operation. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. However, it could be more complete by mentioning permission requirements or error conditions.

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 description provides clear semantic meaning for all three parameters beyond the schema's type information: channel identifies where the message exists, timestamp identifies the specific message, and emoji_name specifies the reaction (with the helpful note 'without colons'). With 0% schema description coverage, this fully compensates by explaining what each parameter represents.

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 specific action ('Add a reaction emoji') and the target resource ('to a message'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_reaction (which removes reactions) and send_message (which creates messages). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 context by specifying that it adds reactions to existing messages, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_message for new content or remove_reaction for undoing reactions. No guidance is provided on prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/piekstra/slack-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server