Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

delete_issue_emoji_reaction

Destructive

Remove an emoji reaction from a GitLab issue by providing project ID, issue IID, and award ID. Use after verifying the target to clean up reactions with required permissions.

Instructions

Remove an emoji reaction from an issue. Use this only after verifying the target; choose a get or list tool first when you need to inspect state without changing it. It changes or removes remote GitLab data and may be irreversible; it requires the necessary project or group permission and returns validation, conflict, permission, or rate-limit errors. 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
award_idYesThe ID of the emoji reaction to delete
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. Addedv2.1.18
  3. Removedv2.1.14
  4. Addedv2.1.11
  5. Removedv2.1.10
  6. Addedv2.1.9

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it clarifies the operation may be irreversible, requires the necessary project or group permission, and returns validation, conflict, permission, or rate-limit errors. This is consistent with the annotations.

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?

The description is organized and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by usage guidance and behavior. The final sentence is somewhat boilerplate and repeats schema wording, but the description remains appropriately sized and readable.

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 delete operation, it covers purpose, when to use, side effects, permission requirements, and error classes. It does not describe the success return value, but the absence of an output schema makes that a minor gap rather than a serious omission.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mostly echoes the schema's project_id guidance and adds a general 'pagination fields' clause that is not actually schema-specific, adding little extra meaning.

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?

The opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove an emoji reaction from an issue.' It is clearly distinguished from MR reaction tools, though it does not explicitly call out the closely related note-reaction sibling, so a fully explicit sibling differentiation is missing.

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 gives a clear usage condition: 'Use this only after verifying the target' and directs agents to get/list tools when inspection is needed. This is helpful but does not name the specific sibling (e.g., list_issue_emoji_reactions) that would provide the needed award_id.

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