discord-admin-mcp

timeout_member

Temporarily mute or quarantine a Discord member by setting a timeout duration in seconds, or remove an existing timeout by setting duration to 0.

Instructions

Timeout (mute/quarantine) a member for a specified duration in seconds. Set duration_seconds to 0 to remove timeout.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "user_id": "<user_id>",
      "duration_seconds": "<duration_seconds>"
    },
    "name": "timeout_member"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reason`	No
`user_id`	Yes
`guild_id`	No
`duration_seconds`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core behavior (mute/quarantine), duration-based removal, and the 0 sentinel. However, it does not mention permission requirements, side effects on existing timeouts, or duration limits, which would be valuable for a moderation write operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action followed by the critical edge case. No wasted words or repetitive detail.

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?

The core usage is clear, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values. However, for a no-annotation moderation tool, it lacks permission context, error/limit behavior, and explicit guidance on when to prefer timeout over kick/ban.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add useful semantics for duration_seconds (unit and 0-to-remove behavior), but largely restates 'duration in seconds' and does not explain guild_id defaults or reason usage beyond the schema titles.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Timeout (mute/quarantine) a member' with a clear duration mechanism. The temporary/mute nature distinguishes it from sibling moderation tools like kick_member, ban_member, and unban_member.

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?

It clearly explains the main usage—timeout for a duration in seconds—and explicitly covers the special case of 'Set duration_seconds to 0 to remove timeout.' It does not explicitly name alternatives for permanent actions, but the core context and edge case are clear.

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

Deploy Server