Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
feishu-user-plugin

feishu-user-plugin

by EthanQC
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

add_reaction

Add an emoji reaction to a Feishu message by specifying the message ID and emoji type.

Instructions

[Official API] Add an emoji reaction to a message.

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": {
      "message_id": "<message_id>",
      "emoji_type": "<emoji_type>"
    },
    "name": "add_reaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
message_idYesMessage ID (om_xxx)
emoji_typeYesEmoji type string, e.g. "THUMBSUP", "SMILE", "HEART"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.3.10

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
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 of behavioral transparency. It only restates the action without disclosing side effects, authentication requirements, idempotency, or how the reaction is displayed to others. This adds little beyond the tool name.

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 a single short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and contains no unnecessary elaboration. The '[Official API]' prefix is minor metadata but does not detract from the overall conciseness.

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 and all parameters are documented in the schema, but the description gives no behavioral context or return value expectations. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this feels under-specified, although the low complexity keeps it from being severely deficient.

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 input schema fully describes both parameters (message_id and emoji_type) with examples, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Add' and clearly identifies the resource 'emoji reaction to a message'. It is unambiguous and distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like delete_reaction, which performs the opposite operation.

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 when to use the tool ('when you want to add a reaction') but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not mention related tools like delete_reaction or forward_message, leaving usage context largely implied.

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