Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
huly-mcp-selfhost

huly-mcp-selfhost

by JoKeks2023
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

remove_reaction

Destructive

Remove an emoji reaction from a Huly message by specifying the workspace, message ID, and emoji to keep chat feedback accurate and up to date.

Instructions

Remove your emoji 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": {
      "workspace": "<workspace>",
      "messageId": "<messageId>",
      "emoji": "<emoji>"
    },
    "name": "remove_reaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emojiYese.g. 👍
messageIdYesMessage id (list_messages, list_comments, list_thread)
workspaceYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.5.1

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — 'your' signals that only the caller's own reaction can be removed, not someone else's. It says nothing about idempotency, behavior when the reaction is absent, or required permissions.

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?

Four words, front-loaded with the action and containing no filler. Brevity here is close to under-specification rather than elegance, but nothing is wasted.

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 three-required-parameter toggle-off tool with no output schema, the essentials are technically present, but a destructive operation with an undocumented workspace parameter deserves at least a note on failure modes or scope. Adequate, not complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 67%: emoji gets an example and messageId points at the list tools, but workspace is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter meaning at all — no emoji format rules, no cross-workspace caveats — so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove ... emoji reaction') that an agent can distinguish from add_reaction without opening the schema. It also scopes the action with 'your', but stops short of any further 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative (add_reaction is implied only by symmetry). The agent must infer that this is the inverse of adding a reaction and that it applies only to the caller's own reaction.

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