Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

delete_issue_note_emoji_reaction

Destructive

Remove an emoji reaction from a GitLab issue note. Provide project, issue, note, and award IDs; include discussion_id for thread replies.

Instructions

Remove an emoji reaction from an issue note. Pass discussion_id for discussion thread replies. 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
note_idYesThe ID of a note (comment or thread reply)
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
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. Addedv2.1.18
  3. Removedv2.1.14
  4. Addedv2.1.11
  5. Removedv2.1.10
  6. Addedv2.1.9

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint, but the description adds irreversibility, permission requirements, and specific error types (validation, conflict, permission, rate-limit), going well beyond the structured data. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with the core action, then provides conditions and warnings in a logical order. It is appropriately sized without redundancy, though slightly longer than strictly necessary.

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?

Covers purpose, usage guidance, destructive nature, permissions, errors, and parameter guidance. Lacks return-value details, but that is acceptable for a delete operation without an 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 provides full descriptions for all 6 parameters (100% coverage). The description adds a minor clarification about project_id/group_id formats and pagination, but does not add significant new semantics 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?

States the specific action: removing an emoji reaction from an issue note, and clarifies the discussion_id case. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that target merge request notes or issue-level emoji.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to verify the target first and use get/list tools for inspection before mutation. Also explains when to pass discussion_id. However, it does not name specific alternative tools for note-level vs issue-level emoji removal, leaving some inference to the agent.

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