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

Lock channel

lock_channel

Deny everyone permission to send messages and start threads in a Discord channel while preserving existing role and member overrides; reverse all changes with unlock_channel.

Instructions

Lock a channel by denying everyone the ability to send messages and start threads. Roles and members with their own permission to post on the channel keep it, so moderators set up that way keep access; the result names them. Reverse with unlock_channel, which puts back exactly what the lock changed.

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": {
      "channel": "<channel>"
    },
    "name": "lock_channel"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field 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"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.3.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  3. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only say readOnly=false and destructive=false; the description earns credit by explaining why it is non-destructive (unlock_channel restores exactly what changed) and by disclosing the nuanced effect that roles/members with their own post permission retain access, with the result naming them. It stops short of stating required permissions or what happens to pre-existing overrides.

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 sentences, the core effect is front-loaded, and the reversibility note follows immediately. No filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the important parts: what is changed, who is exempted, what the response contains, and how to undo it. Permission prerequisites for the caller are the main omission, but the core call decision is well supported.

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 67%: guild and channel carry descriptions, while reason has only a maxLength. The description mentions none of the three parameters, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate at this coverage level, though the undocumented reason field leaves a small gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (lock a channel) plus the exact mechanism: denying everyone the ability to send messages and start threads. It also names the sibling that undoes it, so an agent can distinguish lock_channel from unlock_channel without opening either schema.

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 reverse relationship is explicit — 'Reverse with unlock_channel, which puts back exactly what the lock changed' — which gives a clear condition for choosing the other tool. It does not, however, contrast against adjacent alternatives like set_channel_permissions or clear_channel_permissions, so the agent must infer that this is the coarse-grained option.

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