Revoke a Discord invite link to stop future joins. Requires Manage Server or Manage Channels; optionally records a reason in the audit log.
Revoke an invite link. Needs Manage Server (or Manage Channels for that channel).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | ||
| reason | No | Reason shown in the server audit log (optional) |
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 and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by spelling out the required permissions, which the annotations do not convey. It omits, however, whether the invite is immediately invalidated or that the audit-log reason is recorded.
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 sentences, with the action front-loaded and the permission constraint following. No filler or redundancy.
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 simple two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the essentials (action, permissions) are present, but the undocumented 'code' parameter and the absence of any note on where to obtain an invite code leave a meaningful gap in what an agent needs to call it correctly.
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 only 50%: 'reason' is documented in the schema, while 'code' has just a pattern and no description. The description adds nothing about either parameter, not even clarifying that 'code' is the invite code obtainable from an invite URL or discord_list_invites, so the coverage gap is left unfilled.
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 and resource ('Revoke an invite link'), which an agent can trivially distinguish from discord_create_invite and discord_list_invites. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it stops short of the strongest possible routing signal, but the operation itself is unambiguous.
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?
The description gives a precondition (Manage Server, or Manage Channels for that channel) but never says when to reach for this tool versus alternatives such as discord_list_invites (to find the code) or other invite-management tools. Usage is implied by the verb rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.