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 thread

delete_thread
Destructive

Remove a Discord thread and its messages via a preview-and-confirm flow; archive instead when a reversible option is needed.

Instructions

Delete a thread and its messages. Safe to call directly: the first call changes nothing and returns a preview plus a confirm_token; repeating the call with the token deletes it. Archiving is the reversible alternative.

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": {
      "thread": "<thread>"
    },
    "name": "delete_thread"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
guildNoGuild (server) name or ID. Omit to use the default guild.
reasonNo
threadYesThread name or ID.
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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With destructiveHint=true already set, the description still adds substantial context: the first call is a no-op that returns a preview plus a confirm_token, and the delete only occurs when the call is repeated with that token. That two-phase confirmation contract is exactly the behavior an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, efficiently front-loaded: what it deletes, how to invoke it safely, and the reversible alternative. Nothing is redundant and no sentence is wasted.

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, no-output-schema mutation it covers the confirmation mechanics, data loss scope, and the safer alternative. The remaining gap is minor: dry_run is never mentioned or distinguished from the implicit preview call.

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?

Coverage is 60%, and the description meaningfully reinforces confirm_token's role by explaining how to obtain the token through the preview. However, dry_run and reason are never addressed, so the undocumented portion of the schema is left to the schema itself, which fits a baseline 3.

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 names a specific verb and resource plus its blast radius: "Delete a thread and its messages." The cascade semantics (messages go too) and the point that archiving is the reversible counterpart let an agent place this apart from get_thread, update_thread, and delete_message.

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 states this is "safe to call directly" and names archiving as the reversible alternative, which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of pointing at a specific sibling tool by name for archiving, so the routing is conceptual rather than explicit.

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