deleteReaction
Delete a reaction from an item by specifying the reference type and ID.
Instructions
Delete a reaction from an item
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| refType | Yes | Reference type | |
| refId | Yes | Reference ID |
Delete a reaction from an item by specifying the reference type and ID.
Delete a reaction from an item
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| refType | Yes | Reference type | |
| refId | Yes | Reference ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Delete a reaction from an item' without mentioning side effects, idempotency, or permissions needed.
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?
A single sentence of 5 words is concise, but it may be too brief given the lack of detail. Still, it is front-loaded and to the point.
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 does not explain how the reaction is identified (e.g., via parameters pointing to the item rather than the reaction) or what the return value is. Given no output schema, more context is needed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; the parameter descriptions ('Reference type', 'Reference ID') are vague and the tool description does not clarify them.
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 'Delete a reaction from an item' clearly specifies the verb (delete), resource (reaction), and target (item), distinguishing it from siblings like createReaction and getReactions.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., createReaction, getReactions). There are no prerequisites or contextual hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mindwear-capitian/followupboss-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server