Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_merge_request_emoji_reactions

Read-only

List all emoji reactions on a merge request using project ID and merge request IID. Retrieve read-only feedback without modifying GitLab data.

Instructions

List all emoji reactions on a merge request. 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.
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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations supply readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds concrete value beyond it: 'read-only and does not mutate GitLab data,' plus enumerated error conditions (missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, rate limits). This aligns with both readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and no contradiction exists between description and 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage routing, safety/error disclosure, and parameter guidance. Each sentence earns its place, though the final sentence contains boilerplate (group_id, pagination) that is not actually applicable to this schema, keeping it just short of top marks.

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 3-parameter list tool with 100% schema coverage, readOnlyHint=true, and no output schema, the description covers selection criteria, safety posture, and error conditions—the essentials an agent needs. Residual gaps (unnamed note-level sibling, no return-format hint) are minor given the schema richness; the inapplicable group_id line is the main noise.

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 all three parameters, setting the baseline at 3. The description reinforces the project_id format ('numeric ID or complete URL-encoded path described by the schema'), but introduces a conditional reference to group_id that does not exist in this schema and a generic pagination directive with no pagination fields present—mild noise that prevents it from exceeding the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'List all emoji reactions on a merge request,' which matches the tool name precisely and distinguishes it from single-resource get tools. It frames collection vs. single-resource tooling, but refers generically to 'the corresponding get tool' rather than naming the most confusable sibling, list_merge_request_note_emoji_reactions, so the name must carry that differentiation.

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 an explicit selection rule: use for a collection of resources, switch to a get tool when a single resource is already known. This is actionable and clear, though the get-tool alternative is generic; it does not point at a concrete sibling for note-level emoji reactions or the create/delete emoji tools, leaving some routing to inference.

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