Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
github-mcp

github-mcp

by Eyalm321
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

github_reactions_delete_for_issue

Delete a reaction from a GitHub issue by specifying owner, repo, issue number, and reaction ID.

Instructions

Delete an issue reaction

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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "issue_number": "<issue_number>",
      "reaction_id": "<reaction_id>"
    },
    "name": "github_reactions_delete_for_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownerYesowner
repoYesrepo
issue_numberYesissue_number
reaction_idYesreaction_id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.0.2

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must handle behavioral disclosure. It states "Delete", implying a destructive, irreversible action, but offers no details on authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it is extremely brief and borders on under-specification, as it adds little beyond the tool's name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given zero annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, error conditions, or prerequisites like authentication. The tool is a delete operation, so completeness is low.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 100% description coverage, but each parameter description is only the parameter name (e.g., "owner"). The tool description adds no additional meaning or context to the parameters, such as how to obtain a reaction_id.

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?

The description clearly states the verb "Delete" and the resource "issue reaction", which directly communicates the action. It distinguishes from siblings like create or list because it specifies deletion, but does not explicitly differentiate from other delete reaction tools (e.g., for comments).

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 such as github_reactions_delete_for_issue_comment or github_reactions_create_for_issue. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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