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

Remove thread member

remove_thread_member

Removes a specified member from a Discord thread, requiring Manage Threads permission. Use it to manage thread participation.

Instructions

Remove a member from a thread. Needs Manage Threads.

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>",
      "member": "<member>"
    },
    "name": "remove_thread_member"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate that this is a mutation. It does add the useful permission requirement (Manage Threads), but says nothing about reversibility, whether the member can be re-added, or whether a failed removal errors or no-ops. That leaves a meaningful gap for a state-changing operation.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the action is front-loaded and the permission prerequisite follows immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 simple three-parameter removal tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers the action and the permission gate. It is only slightly short of complete because it omits outcome behavior (reversibility, error vs no-op) that an agent would want before mutating thread membership.

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 description coverage is 100% and all three parameters (guild, member, thread) are documented in the schema, including the 'omit to use default guild' behavior. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Remove a member from a thread'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling add_thread_member. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls just short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The prerequisite 'Needs Manage Threads' tells the agent when the call can succeed, which is real guidance. It gives no when-to-use vs alternatives framing (e.g. kick_member vs remove_thread_member) and no note on what happens to a member already absent from the thread.

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