Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_merge_request_emoji_reaction

Add emoji reactions to GitLab merge requests to express feedback. Provide project, merge request IID, and emoji name to update remote state with validation.

Instructions

Add an emoji reaction to a merge request (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.
project_idYesProject ID or complete URL-encoded path to project
merge_request_iidYesThe IID of a merge request

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

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the openWorldHint annotation, the description explicitly states it 'changes remote GitLab state' and requires permission, and discloses that GitLab returns validation, conflict, permission, or rate-limit errors rather than silently applying invalid requests. This provides meaningful behavioral context 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 description is structured and front-loads purpose, but contains some fluff and inaccuracies, such as referencing 'group_id' when the schema only includes project_id, and mentioning 'pagination fields' which are irrelevant. It could be tightened without losing 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 tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage guidance, side effects, permission requirements, and error behavior. Minor confusion from the group_id/pagination references doesn't hinder overall completeness, but the omission of return value specifics is acceptable given no output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds limited value. It does clarify the project_id format ('numeric ID or complete URL-encoded path'), which is already in the schema, and mentions 'pagination fields' that don't apply to this tool (no pagination). No significant extra meaning is added.

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 description states a specific action ('Add an emoji reaction to a merge request') with examples (thumbsup, rocket, eyes), and explicitly differentiates from update/edit tools for existing resources. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_merge_request_emoji_reaction and list_merge_request_emoji_reactions.

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?

It provides clear guidance: use for new resources/actions, and use an update/edit tool when the resource already exists. This tells the agent when to use it vs alternatives, though it doesn't name specific alternative tools. It also notes permission requirements and error behavior, which helps in deciding applicability.

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