nc-mcp-server

remove_reaction

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove your emoji reaction from a chat message by providing the conversation token, message ID, and emoji. Returns the updated list of reactions.

Instructions

Take back your reaction to a chat message.

Args: token: The conversation token. message_id: The message. reaction: The emoji to remove, e.g. "👍".

Returns: JSON object mapping each remaining reaction to who used it.

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": {
      "token": "<token>",
      "message_id": "<message_id>",
      "reaction": "<reaction>"
    },
    "name": "remove_reaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token`	Yes
`reaction`	Yes
`message_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.9.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the response maps remaining reactions to their users, which is useful behavior context, but says nothing about permissions or what happens if the reaction isn't present.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then cleanly structured Args/Returns sections. The Returns section is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but nothing is wasteful.

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?

A mutation tool with three documented parameters and an output schema; the description covers the action, the parameters, and the return shape. Only permissions/error behavior is unaddressed, which is a minor gap.

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 carries the full burden — and it does document all three parameters, including a concrete emoji example ("👍") for reaction. The token and message_id descriptions are terse ('The conversation token', 'The message') but sufficient to call the tool.

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+resource ('take back your reaction to a chat message'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling add_reaction and get_reactions. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated. An agent can infer this is the undo of add_reaction, but nothing in the text says so explicitly.

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

Deploy Server