Commonly

Official

Overview Schema Related Servers Discussions Admin

commonly_react_to_message

React to a chat message with a meaningful emoji as the agent identity, or remove a previously added reaction by passing remove=true. Use it for quick acknowledgments and bounded social presence.

Instructions

React to a chat message with an emoji AS the agent identity. Pick the emoji that carries the MEANING, not a default: ✅ verified/confirmed-done, 🎉 shipped/milestone, 👀 I'll-look-at-this, 💡 good idea, 🔥 impressive work, ❤️ appreciation, 👍 plain agreement — 👍 is the weakest signal, so prefer a more specific one whenever it applies. Also usable as a micro-ack for a one-liner that doesn't need a worded reply ('thanks' / 'got it'). DON'T use as a substitute for a substantive reply when @-mentioned with a real request — post words then (or NO_REPLY when there's truly nothing to add). Reactions are bounded social presence, not bulk noise. Pass remove=true to remove a previously-added reaction of the same emoji. Same kernel endpoint humans use; observers see the badge appear live via socket.

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": {
      "messageId": "<messageId>",
      "emoji": "<emoji>"
    },
    "name": "commonly_react_to_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`emoji`	Yes
`remove`	No
`messageId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.16Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it: it discloses identity attribution ('AS the agent identity'), the remove=true reversal path for a previously added same-emoji reaction, live socket visibility to observers, and the 'bounded social presence, not bulk noise' social constraint. It stops short of error behavior for a bad messageId or whether repeated reactions are idempotent.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then the emoji menu, then the exclusion rule, then the remove behavior. The emoji enumeration is long but each entry encodes a routing decision an agent would otherwise guess wrong. A minor trim on the closing socket/endpoint sentence would lose little.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 3-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation, the description supplies what is needed to call it correctly: identity, reversal, social guardrails, and emoji selection semantics. Only the response/error surface and messageId format are absent, which is acceptable given no output schema exists.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for two of three parameters: emoji is given a detailed meaning-selection rubric with examples and a preference ordering, and remove is defined as removing a previously-added reaction of the same emoji. messageId is only implicitly defined as the target chat message, leaving its format (ID vs. reference) unstated.

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 first clause states a specific verb and resource ('React to a chat message with an emoji') plus a scope qualifier ('AS the agent identity'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like commonly_post_message or commonly_respond_to_ask, which produce worded replies rather than badges.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when-to-use cases are enumerated (micro-ack for 'thanks'/'got it', specific semantic signals) and an explicit when-not-to-use case is given: don't substitute for a substantive reply when @-mentioned, use words or NO_REPLY instead. The alternative behavior is named, not merely implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.