Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_issue_emoji_reaction

Add an emoji reaction to a GitLab issue by providing project ID, issue IID, and emoji name. Changes remote state and returns errors for invalid requests.

Instructions

Add an emoji reaction to an issue (e.g. thumbsup, rocket, eyes). Use this for a new resource or action; choose the corresponding update or edit tool when the resource already exists. It changes remote GitLab state and requires the necessary project or group permission; GitLab returns validation, conflict, permission, or rate-limit errors instead of silently applying an invalid request. When project_id or group_id is accepted, provide the numeric ID or complete URL-encoded path described by the schema; use required identifiers and pagination fields exactly as documented.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName of the emoji without colons (e.g. 'thumbsup', 'rocket', 'eyes')
jmespathNoOptional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.
issue_iidYesThe IID of an issue
project_idYesProject ID or complete URL-encoded path to project

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.66
    • addedInput schema / properties / jmespath
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional JMESPath expression filtering the JSON result before return.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.1.62
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "name",
-  "project_id",
-  "issue_iid"
-]New value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "issue_iid",
+  "name"
+]
  3. Addedv2.1.45
  4. Removedv2.1.43
  5. Addedv2.1.18
  6. Removedv2.1.14
  7. Addedv2.1.11
  8. Removedv2.1.10
  9. Addedv2.1.9

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only provide openWorldHint, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool changes remote GitLab state, requires permissions, and surfaces validation, conflict, permission, or rate-limit errors rather than silently succeeding. This is useful beyond the annotations and matches the annotation 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 core action and examples are front-loaded and readable, but the description includes boilerplate such as 'use required identifiers and pagination fields exactly as documented' and a generic new-vs-update rule that is not specifically tailored to emoji reactions. Some sentences add noise rather than tool-specific value.

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 simple create operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: mutation, permission needs, error behavior, and identifier format. It does not describe the response or duplicate-reaction behavior, but this is not required given the tool's simplicity and the schema coverage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents all parameters including the emoji name examples. The description restates the project_id format mentioned in the schema and adds no new parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already carries the documentation weight.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action and resource: 'Add an emoji reaction to an issue', with concrete examples ('thumbsup', 'rocket'). The issue scope distinguishes it from sibling reaction tools for merge requests and notes, so an agent can identify the correct target without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a clear creation context: use this for a new resource/action and prefer update/edit tools for existing resources. It also notes permission requirements and error behavior. It does not explicitly name alternate siblings like create_issue_note_emoji_reaction, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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