Remove a role or member's Discord channel permission overwrite to restore default access or clean up channel-specific permissions.
Remove a role's or member's permission overwrite from a channel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target_id | Yes | Role ID or user ID | |
| channel_id | Yes | Channel ID (a thread ID also works) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the destructive nature is covered structurally. The description is consistent with these hints but adds little behavioral context beyond the action itself - no mention of required permissions, irreversibility, or what happens if no matching overwrite exists.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place and the action is stated immediately.
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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but thin. Annotations carry the safety profile, yet the description omits permission requirements and the delete-vs-null distinction, leaving notable gaps.
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 target_id ('Role ID or user ID') and channel_id ('Channel ID (a thread ID also works)') are already documented. The description's mention of 'role's or member's' echoes the schema without adding format or edge-case detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (remove) and resource (role's or member's permission overwrite) scoped to a channel. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like discord_set_channel_permission and discord_delete_channel. It does not, however, explicitly name those siblings to route the agent.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. In particular it never clarifies the distinction from discord_set_channel_permission (setting an overwrite to null) versus deleting the overwrite entirely, which is the ambiguity an agent most needs resolved.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.