Skip to main content
Glama
piekstra

Slack MCP Server

by piekstra

remove_reaction

Remove a reaction emoji from a Slack message by specifying the channel, timestamp, and emoji name.

Instructions

Remove a reaction emoji from 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

  • The primary MCP tool handler for 'remove_reaction', decorated with @mcp.tool(). It creates a SlackClient instance and delegates to its remove_reaction method, returning JSON-formatted results.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def remove_reaction(channel: str, timestamp: str, emoji_name: str) -> str:
        """
        Remove a reaction emoji from 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.remove_reaction(channel, timestamp, emoji_name)
            return json.dumps(result, indent=2)
        except Exception as e:
            return json.dumps({"error": str(e)}, indent=2)
  • Supporting method in the SlackClient class that performs the actual API request to Slack's reactions.remove endpoint.
    async def remove_reaction(self, channel: str, timestamp: str, name: str) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """Remove a reaction from a message."""
        data = {"channel": channel, "timestamp": timestamp, "name": name}
        return await self._make_request("POST", "reactions.remove", json_data=data)
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. It states the action but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured 'Args' section. It's efficient with no wasted words, though the 'Args' formatting could be slightly more integrated into the flow.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the basic action and parameters adequately. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks context on permissions, side effects, and error handling, leaving gaps for safe agent use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by clearly explaining all three parameters in the 'Args' section: 'channel' as Channel ID, 'timestamp' as Timestamp of the message, and 'emoji_name' with specific formatting ('without colons'). This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Remove a reaction emoji') and resource ('from a message'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_reaction' (which adds reactions) and 'delete_message' (which removes entire messages). The verb 'remove' 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 Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing permission to remove reactions), exclusions (e.g., cannot remove others' reactions without admin rights), or related tools like 'update_message' for editing message content instead of reactions.

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