Skip to main content
Glama

github_reactions_list_for_issue_comment

List all reactions on a specific GitHub issue comment. Supports filtering by reaction type and pagination for large result sets.

Instructions

List reactions for an issue comment

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownerYesowner
repoYesrepo
comment_idYescomment_id
contentNoReturns a single [reaction type](https://docs.github.com/rest/reactions/reactions#about-reactions). Omit this parameter to list all reactions to an issue comment.
per_pageNoThe number of results per page (max 100). For more information, see "[Using pagination in the REST API](https://docs.github.com/rest/using-the-rest-api/using-pagination-in-the-rest-api)."
pageNoThe page number of the results to fetch. For more information, see "[Using pagination in the REST API](https://docs.github.com/rest/using-the-rest-api/using-pagination-in-the-rest-api)."
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 fails to mention that this fetches data via the GitHub REST API, supports pagination (via per_page/page params), or returns specific reaction types. Minimal transparency.

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?

Extremely concise (5 words), but not front-loaded with key information. While it's short, it sacrifices detail for brevity. Adequate but not structured optimally.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should compensate with more context. It doesn't mention pagination, response format, or any behavioral details, making it less complete than expected for a tool with 6 parameters.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'reactions for an issue comment', making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'list_for_issue' but still sufficiently identifies the resource.

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 (e.g., list_for_issue, create_for_issue_comment). No context about prerequisites or common use cases.

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/Eyalm321/github-mcp'

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