Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_issue_note_emoji_reaction

Add an emoji reaction to an issue comment or thread reply in GitLab. Specify project, issue, note ID, and emoji name; include discussion ID for replies.

Instructions

Add an emoji reaction to an issue note. Pass discussion_id for discussion thread replies. 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')
note_idYesThe ID of a note (comment or thread reply)
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
discussion_idNoThe ID of a discussion thread. Required for notes that are discussion replies; omit for top-level notes.

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",
-  "note_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "issue_iid",
+  "note_id",
+  "name"
+]
  3. Addedv2.1.18
  4. Removedv2.1.14
  5. Addedv2.1.11
  6. Removedv2.1.10
  7. Addedv2.1.9

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description explicitly discloses that the call mutates remote GitLab state, requires project/group permission, and surfaces validation, conflict, permission, or rate-limit errors rather than failing silently. The openWorldHint annotation is weak, so this behavioral and error-mode context is meaningful and goes beyond the annotation.

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 first two sentences are sharp, but the third and fifth are generic boilerplate that could apply to any create tool, and the final sentence references group_id and pagination not present in the schema. The core information is front-loaded, but the extra sentences dilute 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 mutating tool with no output schema and only an openWorldHint annotation, the description provides the key operational facts: what resource is targeted, when discussion_id is required, what permissions are needed, and what error classes to expect. It does not describe the success return value, but that is a minor gap for a create action whose schema already documents required identifiers.

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?

All six parameters are already described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful clarification for discussion_id ('required for notes that are discussion replies') but repeats project_id schema text and introduces irrelevant references to group_id and pagination fields that do not exist in this schema.

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?

The opening sentence names the exact action and resource: adding an emoji reaction to an issue note, which distinguishes it from issue-level reaction and MR note reaction siblings. The discussion_id mention further clarifies the target as a note in a discussion thread.

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?

The only tool-selection guidance is a generic 'use this for a new resource... choose update/edit tool when it already exists' line, which is not tailored to this resource and is misleading because no update-emoji-reaction sibling exists. It does not explicitly route agents away from create_issue_emoji_reaction or create_merge_request_note_emoji_reaction, and the discussion_id guidance is about a parameter rather than tool choice.

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