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

Kick member

kick_member
Destructive

Remove a member from a Discord server so they can rejoin only with a new invite. Returns a preview with a confirm token; repeat the call with it to execute the kick.

Instructions

Remove a member from the server. They can rejoin with a new invite. Safe to call directly: the first call changes nothing and returns a preview plus a confirm_token; repeating the call with the token performs the kick. Relay the preview for the user's go-ahead instead of doing nothing.

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": {
      "member": "<member>"
    },
    "name": "kick_member"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
guildNoGuild (server) name or ID. Omit to use the default guild.
memberYesMember name or user ID.
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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the non-obvious fact that the first call is a no-op that returns a preview and confirm_token, and that membership is recoverable via a new invite. That materially changes how an agent sequences calls. It does not mention required permissions or whether the reason string is surfaced to the user or audit log, leaving some 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its reversibility, then the confirmation mechanics. The closing sentence partly restates "safe to call directly" but adds the concrete instruction to relay the preview, so the redundancy is mild rather than wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by describing the preview plus confirm_token response. For a destructive, two-phase tool this covers what an agent needs to invoke it safely, with only permission requirements and the role of reason left unstated.

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 coverage is 60%, and the description explains the confirm_token flow in prose, reinforcing what the schema already says about that parameter. It says nothing about dry_run or reason, the two parameters the schema leaves least documented (reason has only a maxLength), so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

"Remove a member from the server" states a specific verb and resource, and "They can rejoin with a new invite" implicitly separates it from harsher siblings like ban_member. It stops short of naming the alternative outright, so an agent must infer the kick-vs-ban distinction rather than being routed explicitly.

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?

"Safe to call directly" plus the preview/confirm_token sequence gives clear operational guidance on how and in what order to invoke it, and "Relay the preview for the user's go-ahead instead of doing nothing" tells the agent what to do after the first call. It never states when to prefer this over ban_member or timeout_member, so selection among siblings is left implicit.

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