grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

chat.customEmojis.create

Creates a custom emoji for Google Chat in Workspace organizations where an administrator has enabled custom emojis, returning the API response as JSON.

Instructions

Creates a custom emoji. Custom emojis are only available for Google Workspace accounts, and the administrator must turn custom emojis on for the organization. For more information, see Learn about custom emojis in Google Chat and Manage custom emoji permissions. Requires user authentication with the authorization scope: - https:// [HTTP POST] — creates or triggers a change; refused under --readonly safety profiles. Returns the API's response resource as JSON — request body is a JSON CustomEmoji object accepting emojiName, name, payload, temporaryImageUri, uid; pass it via paramsor whole viabody_file` Siblings over the same resource: delete, get, list.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	No	Extra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
`params`	No	Parameter map merged into the request; typed parameters win.
`dry_run`	No	Return the request that would be sent, without sending it.
`body_file`	No	Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters. The body is a JSON CustomEmoji object.
`request_body`	No	Request body of type CustomEmoji: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`uid`	No
`name`	No
`payload`	No
`emojiName`	No
`temporaryImageUri`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / body_file / description

Previous value: -"Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters."New value: +"Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters. The body is a JSON CustomEmoji object."

addedInput schema / properties / request_body

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Request body of type CustomEmoji: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.",
+  "properties": {
+    "emojiName": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "payload": {
+      "properties": {
+        "fileContent": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "filename": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "temporaryImageUri": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "uid": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 26, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "emojiName": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "payload": {
+      "properties": {
+        "fileContent": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "filename": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "temporaryImageUri": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "uid": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

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 mostly does: it discloses this is a write ('HTTP POST — creates or triggers a change'), that it is refused under --readonly profiles, that it returns the API response resource as JSON, and that dry_run returns the request without sending. It omits quota/rate-limit behavior and error semantics.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the text is padded with documentation links and a framework-generated sibling list, and the auth-scope sentence is visibly broken — the scope URL is truncated mid-string ('`https:// [HTTP POST]'), leaving a garbled clause in the middle of the description.

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 5-parameter nested-body write tool with an output schema, the definition covers prerequisites, auth, body routing, and return shape well enough to call it correctly. The missing pieces are failure modes and the truncated scope identifier.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes slightly beyond by explaining the two body routes — fields merged via `params` or a whole CustomEmoji object via `body_file` — and names the body fields (emojiName, name, payload, temporaryImageUri, uid). The nesting of payload's fileContent still lives only in the schema.

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 first sentence is a specific verb+resource: 'Creates a custom emoji.' The trailing 'Siblings over the same resource: delete, get, list' lets an agent place it against the other customEmojis tools, though it is a bare enumeration without differentiation of when each is used.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It states real preconditions — Google Workspace account required, org admin must enable custom emojis, user auth with a specific scope — but never says when to choose create over delete/get/list, nor what to do on the (likely) permission failure. Usage is implied by the prerequisites rather than instructed.

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

Deploy Server