Remove an emoji reaction from a Slack message using channel, timestamp, and emoji name.
Remove an emoji reaction from a Slack message.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Emoji name without colons (e.g., 'thumbsup') | |
| channel | Yes | Channel ID containing the message | |
| timestamp | Yes | Message timestamp | |
| use_user_token | No | Remove reaction as the authenticated user (requires xoxp- user token) rather than the bot |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states the core action and does not disclose whether the bot removes its own reaction by default, whether use_user_token is needed for user-authored reactions, or what happens if the reaction does not exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words, and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description plus full parameter schema is adequate for basic invocation of a straightforward reaction-removal tool. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and no mention of authentication or failure behavior, an agent is left with some gaps around token usage and edge cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All four parameters are already documented in the schema, which has 100% description coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('emoji reaction from a Slack message'), making the tool's function immediately clear. The verb 'Remove' also differentiates it from sibling tools like add_reaction without requiring schema details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as add_reaction, nor does it mention prerequisites or authentication behavior. The intended use is only implied by the action verb, so an agent receives no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.