Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@ola/buzz-mcp

@ola/buzz-mcp

Official
by ola-krutrim
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

buzz_react

Adds an emoji reaction to a target message using the channel and event id; defaults to 👍 when no emoji is given.

Instructions

React to a message with an emoji (NIP-25). Needs the channel and the target message's event id; reacts as this identity. Default emoji is 👍.

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": {
      "channel": "<channel>",
      "event": "<event>"
    },
    "name": "buzz_react"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emojiNothe reaction emoji; defaults to 👍
eventYesthe target message's event id (from buzz_read)
channelYes
dry_runNopreview only: resolve everything and show the exact event that would be signed (auth tags redacted) — nothing is signed, uploaded or sent

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.2.36
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / channel / maxLength
      Added value: +256
    • addedInput schema / properties / dry_run
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "preview only: resolve everything and show the exact event that would be signed (auth tags redacted) — nothing is signed, uploaded or sent",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / emoji / maxLength
      Added value: +64
    • addedInput schema / properties / event / maxLength
      Added value: +128
  2. First observedv0.2.6

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the reaction is signed as 'this identity' and that reactions are published network events (NIP-25), but it does not say whether re-reacting duplicates a reaction or errors, nor that removal requires buzz_unreact.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by required inputs. The trailing 'Default emoji is 👍' duplicates the emoji schema description, a small redundancy in an otherwise tight definition.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a small mutation tool with clean annotations and no output schema, this covers prerequisites and identity adequately. It leaves open duplicate-reaction behavior, permission/visibility implications, and failure modes when the event id is invalid, which an agent would want before calling.

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 75% and the schema itself carries the key semantics (emoji default, event id sourced from buzz_read, dry_run behavior). The description reinforces the required-field semantics ('needs the channel and the target message's event id') and the identity under which the call executes, adding modest meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 and resource ('React to a message with an emoji') and pins the protocol (NIP-25), so the agent knows exactly what action occurs. It stops short of naming the closely related siblings (buzz_unreact, buzz_reactions), leaving that routing to the tool name alone.

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?

'Needs the channel and the target message's event id' establishes prerequisites, and the schema points at buzz_read as the source of the event id. There is no guidance on when to react instead of reply/forward, no mention of buzz_unreact for removing a reaction, and no exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools