MCP Discord Bot Server

discord_delete_message

Delete a specified message from a Discord channel by providing the channel ID and message ID. Returns JSON confirmation or error details.

Instructions

Delete a message from a Discord channel.

Args:
    channel_id: The ID of the channel containing the message.
    message_id: The ID of the message to delete.

Returns:
    JSON confirmation of deletion or error details.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`channel_id`	Yes	The ID of the Discord channel containing the message. Required.
`message_id`	Yes	The ID of the message to delete. Required.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it omits the critical fact that deletion is irreversible and typically requires MANAGE_MESSAGES or message ownership. Only the return shape ('JSON confirmation of deletion or error details') is disclosed, which is minimal for a destructive operation.

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?

Front-loaded with the action in the first sentence, and the rest is short. The Args/Returns scaffolding is redundant with the schema but is not verbose enough to be a real problem.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the two required params are fully covered. Where it falls short is behavioral completeness for a destructive tool with no annotations: permission requirements and irreversibility are left unstated.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, so the Args block merely restates channel_id and message_id. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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 ('Delete a message from a Discord channel'), which is unambiguous against read/edit siblings like discord_edit_message. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., editing or soft-deleting). Nothing tells the agent when this destructive call is appropriate versus other message tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server