Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

create_merge_request_note_emoji_reaction

Add an emoji reaction to a merge request note or discussion reply. Specify the note ID and optional discussion ID for thread replies.

Instructions

Add an emoji reaction to a merge request 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.
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.
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",
-  "note_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "project_id",
+  "merge_request_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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With only openWorldHint in annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the call changes remote GitLab state, requires project/group permission, and returns validation, conflict, permission, or rate-limit errors instead of silently succeeding. It also notes the discussion-thread behavior. Idempotency and response format are not covered, but the main operational risks are disclosed.

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 sentences are tight and front-loaded with the core purpose and the discussion_id tip. The later sentences, especially 'When project_id or group_id is accepted...', read as generic boilerplate not specific to this tool and add unnecessary length. Reasonably organized but not lean.

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?

Given six parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers a lot: purpose, mutation safety, permissions, error behavior, discussion replies, and new-vs-update selection. It does not name exact sibling tools or describe the returned object, but those are minor gaps for a create-reaction tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description reiterates the discussion_id behavior that the schema already explains and adds generic project_id/group_id identifier guidance, though group_id is not actually a parameter of this tool. This adds only marginal value beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add an emoji reaction to a merge request note.' This immediately distinguishes it from siblings like create_merge_request_note or create_merge_request_emoji_reaction. The description also contrasts it with update/edit tools for existing resources.

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?

The description explicitly says to use this tool for a new resource or action and to choose the corresponding update/edit tool when the resource already exists, which provides clear when/when-not guidance. It also explains when discussion_id is needed. However, it does not name the specific sibling tools or mention when deletion would be the right alternative.

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