stream_get_reactionsList the reactions on a message. GET /api/v2/chat/messages/{id}/reactions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Message id. | |
| limit | No | Max reactions. Default 50. | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description's "List" plus GET method is consistent with that. It adds the concrete endpoint, but does not disclose additional behavior such as pagination semantics, ordering, or error conditions; this is adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first states the operation, and the second supplies the exact endpoint, earning its place as implementation context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only list operation, required id is clear, optional limit/offset are in the schema, and the readOnly annotation covers side-effect expectations. The main gap is that no output shape is described and no output schema exists, but the tool's purpose is otherwise self-contained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so id, limit, and offset are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond echoing the {id} path placeholder.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action and resource: "List the reactions on a message," reinforced by the GET endpoint. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as stream_get_message or stream_send_reaction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied: it should be used when reactions on a message are needed. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives, so an agent must infer the boundary against sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: app info, channel state, messages, reactions, replies, unread counts, and various query types. Even similar tools like get_channel vs query_channels are clearly separated by single-item vs list operations.
All tools follow the consistent pattern stream_<verb>_<resource> (e.g., stream_get_message, stream_query_channels, stream_send_message). Verb usage is coherent across the set.
With 13 tools, the set is well-scoped for a chat API server, covering core read, query, search, and write operations without excessive fragmentation.
Core chat workflows are covered: app info, channel access, messaging, reactions, threads, unread counts, and user/channel queries. Missing mutations like channel/message update or delete are notable but not severe, as the get-or-create channel behavior and send actions cover primary use cases.