Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

delete_merge_request_note_emoji_reaction

Destructive

Remove an emoji reaction from a merge request note or discussion reply using the award ID, with discussion_id for thread replies.

Instructions

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

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds context beyond these: it states the operation 'changes or removes remote GitLab data and may be irreversible,' mentions required permissions, and enumerates possible error types (validation, conflict, permission, rate-limit). This is valuable behavioral information that goes beyond the annotation flags and helps the agent understand consequences and error handling.

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, followed by usage guidance, risks, and parameter notes. Each sentence adds value, though it is slightly verbose. The structure is logical: action, special case, when-to-use, risk/permission, and parameter format. It is not as tight as the best examples but is not bloated either.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects for a destructive tool: what it does, when to use it, risks, permissions, and error handling. It does not explicitly describe the success response, but that is often not critical for a delete operation, and the annotations cover safety. The mention of pagination fields is slightly ambiguous for a delete tool, but overall the description is adequate given the schema richness and annotation context.

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 schema already documents each parameter. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema. It repeats the discussion_id guidance ('Pass discussion_id for discussion thread replies') which the schema already states, and it mentions URL-encoded paths for project_id which is already in the schema. No new parameter semantics are provided beyond what the structured schema offers.

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 note.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_merge_request_emoji_reaction by scoping to notes and mentioning discussion_id for thread replies. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from similar delete operations.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this only after verifying the target; choose a get or list tool first when you need to inspect state without changing it.' This tells the agent when to avoid this tool and what alternative category to use. It also explains when to pass discussion_id. However, it does not name specific sibling tools (e.g., list_merge_request_note_emoji_reactions) as alternatives, which would be more actionable.

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