Skip to main content
Glama
zereight

gitlab mcp

by zereight
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_merge_request_note_emoji_reactions

Read-only

List every emoji reaction on a merge request note or thread reply. Provide the note ID and, for discussion replies, the discussion ID to see all reactors and emojis.

Instructions

List all emoji reactions on a merge request note. Pass discussion_id for discussion thread replies. 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
note_idYesThe ID of a note (comment or thread reply)
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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

While readOnlyHint already flags safety, the description adds concrete behavioral detail by stating the tool 'does not mutate GitLab data' and enumerating error outcomes (missing resources, invalid identifiers, insufficient permission, rate limits). This goes beyond the annotation.

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 purpose and each sentence adds a distinct piece of information. The final sentence contains minor boilerplate (mentioning group_id and pagination fields that are not in the schema), but overall it remains efficient.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, read-only behavior, error handling, and identifier formats. It falls slightly short of full completeness because the generic group_id/pagination mention could confuse an agent, and it doesn't describe the result shape.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful guidance: discussion_id is 'Required for notes that are discussion replies' and project_id can be a numeric ID or URL-encoded path. This clarifies the schema rather than repeating it.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List all emoji reactions on a merge request note.' It also distinguishes the collection-oriented tool from a hypothetical get tool, and the name plus content differentiates it from siblings like list_merge_request_emoji_reactions.

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 gives an explicit collection-vs-single rule ('Use this for a collection of resources; choose the corresponding get tool when you already know the single resource to inspect') and explains when discussion_id is required. It does not explicitly contrast with list_merge_request_emoji_reactions, but the name makes the MR-note scope clear.

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