Skip to main content
Glama

delete_reaction

Remove an emoji reaction from a message by providing the message ID and reaction ID.

Instructions

[Official API] Remove an emoji reaction from a message.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
message_idYesMessage ID
reaction_idYesReaction ID (from add_reaction response)

Implementation Reference

  • Schema definition for the 'delete_reaction' tool. Specifies input parameters: message_id (string, required) and reaction_id (string, required).
      name: 'delete_reaction',
      description: '[Official API] Remove an emoji reaction from a message.',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          message_id: { type: 'string', description: 'Message ID' },
          reaction_id: { type: 'string', description: 'Reaction ID (from add_reaction response)' },
        },
        required: ['message_id', 'reaction_id'],
      },
    },
  • Handler function for 'delete_reaction' tool. Calls ctx.getOfficialClient().deleteReaction(args.message_id, args.reaction_id) and returns a text response indicating the reaction was removed.
    async delete_reaction(args, ctx) {
      return text(`Reaction removed: ${(await ctx.getOfficialClient().deleteReaction(args.message_id, args.reaction_id)).deleted}`);
    },
  • Low-level client method deleteReaction that calls the Feishu IM API's messageReaction.delete endpoint with message_id and reaction_id, returning {deleted: true}.
    async deleteReaction(messageId, reactionId) {
      await this._safeSDKCall(
        () => this.client.im.messageReaction.delete({
          path: { message_id: messageId, reaction_id: reactionId },
        }),
        'deleteReaction'
      );
      return { deleted: true };
    },
  • src/server.js:37-57 (registration)
    Tool registration infrastructure: TOOL_MODULES array includes messaging-bot module, TOOLS and HANDLERS are built by flattening all modules' schemas and handlers respectively.
    const TOOL_MODULES = [
      require('./tools/bitable'),
      require('./tools/calendar'),
      require('./tools/contacts'),
      require('./tools/diagnostics'),
      require('./tools/docs'),
      require('./tools/drive'),
      require('./tools/events'),
      require('./tools/groups'),
      require('./tools/im-read'),
      require('./tools/messaging-bot'),
      require('./tools/messaging-user'),
      require('./tools/okr'),
      require('./tools/profile'),
      require('./tools/tasks'),
      require('./tools/uploads'),
      require('./tools/wiki'),
    ];
    
    const TOOLS = TOOL_MODULES.flatMap((m) => m.schemas);
    const HANDLERS = Object.fromEntries(TOOL_MODULES.flatMap((m) => Object.entries(m.handlers)));
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It states 'remove' implying mutation, but lacks details on idempotency, side effects (e.g., behavior if reaction doesn't exist), required permissions, or return value. The [Official API] tag adds legitimacy but not behavioral transparency.

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?

Description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly improved by including a usage hint or note, but it meets conciseness standards.

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?

For a simple two-parameter deletion tool, the description adequately states purpose. However, it lacks any mention of return values, error handling, or confirmation behavior. Given no output schema, the description should at least hint at expected response or success criteria.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions: message_id and reaction_id. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. Schema descriptions are adequate, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states it removes an emoji reaction from a message. The verb 'Remove' and resource 'emoji reaction' are specific. It is implicitly distinguished from siblings like add_reaction (adds) and delete_message (deletes entire message), but lacks explicit differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_reaction or delete_message. The context of sibling names implies usage for reaction removal, but no explicit when/when-not or prerequisites are provided.

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/EthanQC/feishu-user-plugin'

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