Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

delete_merge_request_emoji_reaction

Destructive

Remove an emoji reaction from a merge request by specifying project, merge request IID, and award ID. Use after verifying the target to avoid irreversible changes.

Instructions

Remove an emoji reaction from a merge request. 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.
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. Addedv2.1.18
  3. Removedv2.1.14
  4. Addedv2.1.11
  5. Removedv2.1.10
  6. Addedv2.1.9

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description reinforces that it changes or removes remote GitLab data and may be irreversible. It adds context about permission requirements and possible error responses (validation, conflict, permission, rate-limit), which goes beyond 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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core action, then adds usage guidance and parameter notes. It is slightly dense but every sentence adds value; no filler.

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 destructive mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key context: when to use it, safety caveats, permissions, error types, and identifier handling. It does not detail the return value, but that is less critical for a delete operation and the annotations cover the destructive nature.

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 adds guidance on providing numeric IDs or URL-encoded paths and using required identifiers exactly as documented, but it does not add significant new meaning 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 description clearly states the action ('Remove an emoji reaction from a merge request') with a specific verb and resource, and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like create_merge_request_emoji_reaction and delete_merge_request_note_emoji_reaction. The target resource (merge request emoji reaction) is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly instructs to verify the target first and suggests using a get or list tool when inspection is needed without changing state. It also notes the required permissions and error types, giving clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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