Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Discord MCP - Discord server management MCP for AI agents

Discord MCP - Discord server management MCP for AI agents

by OrygnsCode
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Delete invite

delete_invite
Destructive

Revokes a Discord invite link: the first call returns a preview and confirm token; repeating with the token permanently revokes the invite.

Instructions

Revoke an invite link. Safe to call directly: the first call changes nothing and returns a preview plus a confirm_token; repeating the call with the token revokes it.

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": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "delete_invite"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesThe invite code to revoke.
guildNoGuild (server) name or ID. Omit to use the default guild.
reasonNo
dry_runNo
confirm_tokenNoThe token from this exact action's preview. Where the app can show a confirmation dialog, calling with it asks the user there, and it happens only if they agree.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.4.2
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm_token / description
      Added value: +"The token from this exact action's preview. Where the app can show a confirmation dialog, calling with it asks the user there, and it happens only if they agree."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.3.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  3. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: two-phase confirmation, no-change-on-first-call, and the returned preview/confirm_token. The gap is that dry_run is never related to the described preview-first behavior, so the agent can't tell whether dry_run and the confirm_token flow overlap or differ.

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 with zero waste: the action comes first, the safety/confirmation workflow second. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a destructive five-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical safety workflow and what the first call returns. It is only short of complete on dry_run semantics and on permission or failure behavior for the final revoke.

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?

At 60% schema coverage the schema documents code, guild, and confirm_token, and the description adds workflow meaning for confirm_token (token from this exact action's preview). However dry_run and reason are left unexplained by both schema and description, and the description never clarifies dry_run's relationship to the noted default preview behavior.

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?

"Revoke an invite link" gives a specific verb (revoke) and resource (invite link), clearly distinct from create_invite and get_invite without needing to name them. It stops short of explicitly routing an agent among siblings, but the mutation verb is unambiguous.

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?

The description states how to invoke it correctly (call once for a preview, then repeat with the confirm_token to actually revoke) and reassures that a bare first call is safe. It doesn't address the alternative path of using dry_run=true, which creates a small ambiguity about which confirmation mechanism to prefer.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools