discord-mcp-server

warn_member

Issue warnings to Discord members by specifying user ID and reason, enabling moderation through structured disciplinary actions.

Instructions

Ajoute un avertissement à un membre

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": {
      "userId": "<userId>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "warn_member"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`userId`	Yes	ID du membre
`reason`	Yes	Raison de l'avertissement

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jan 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this adds a warning but doesn't explain what that means operationally: whether warnings are logged, visible to the member, have expiration, require specific permissions, or what the response looks like. For a moderation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a moderation tool that presumably mutates member state, the description is insufficient given the lack of annotations and output schema. It doesn't explain what 'adding a warning' entails operationally, what permissions are required, what happens after the warning is added, or how this differs from similar sibling tools.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description doesn't add any additional context about parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Ajoute un avertissement') and target resource ('à un membre'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'timeout_member' or 'ban_member' which serve related moderation functions.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'timeout_member', 'kick_member', or 'ban_member'. There's no indication of severity levels, prerequisites, or appropriate contexts for warnings versus more severe actions.

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

Deploy Server