Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_issue_emoji_reactions

Read-only

Get all emoji reactions on a GitLab issue by providing the project ID and issue IID. Use it to see who reacted and how, without modifying any data.

Instructions

List all emoji reactions on an issue. Use this for a collection of resources; choose the corresponding get tool when you already know the single resource to inspect. It is read-only and does not mutate GitLab data; missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, and rate limits are returned as 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
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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar for additional behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds concrete error conditions (missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, rate limits) and explicitly states it does not mutate data, providing useful operational context 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 three sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The first two sentences are tight and informative; the third is a generic template clause that introduces off-schema references, but overall the structure is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list operation, the description covers purpose, read-only behavior, error handling, and a rough usage rule. However, the inaccurate `group_id`/pagination references and silence about the response shape leave minor gaps that an agent must infer or discover elsewhere.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description's parameter guidance is mostly redundant, and it references `group_id` and 'pagination fields' that do not appear anywhere in the input schema. This can mislead an agent rather than clarify.

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 opens with 'List all emoji reactions on an issue,' a specific verb+resource pair. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_issue_note_emoji_reactions and the merge request reaction counterparts, leaving no ambiguity about what is listed.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description advises using this tool 'for a collection of resources' and suggests a get tool when a single resource is known. However, no corresponding get tool for emoji reactions actually exists, and the description does not explicitly contrast with create/delete or note-scoped siblings. The guidance is directionally useful but lacks concrete 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