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

Unlock channel

unlock_channel

Reverses a channel lock by restoring prior send-permission denials and removing only those the lock added; previews changes and requires confirmation when no lock record exists.

Instructions

Reverse lock_channel: lift the denials the lock added and put back what it took off, leaving alone anything that was denied before the lock. A channel that was read-only before it was locked stays read-only. On a channel no lock is on record for, it would remove everyone's denial on sending, which may be there on purpose, so that needs confirming: the first call changes nothing and returns a preview and a confirm_token, and repeating the call with the token makes the change.

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": "unlock_channel"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
guildNoGuild (server) name or ID. Omit to use the default guild.
reasonNo
channelYesChannel name or ID.
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
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "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.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.3.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  3. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only tell the agent this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation; the description goes much further by disclosing the restore semantics (denials added by the lock are lifted, pre-existing denials are preserved) and the two-phase preview/confirm protocol. It also flags the risky no-lock case where an intentional denial could be removed, which is precisely the behavioral context annotations cannot convey.

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?

The inverse relationship is front-loaded and the sentences build logically into the confirmation flow with no filler. It is a single dense paragraph, and the pre-existing-read-only caveat could be tightened, but nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness5/5

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 burden of explaining what a call returns, and it does so by describing the preview plus confirm_token response and how to complete the action. For a destructive-adjacent mutation with a confirmation handshake, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 75%, so most parameters are already documented; the description still adds real meaning for confirm_token by explaining that call one mutates nothing and yields the token used by call two, and it clarifies the channel scoping. The reason parameter is never mentioned, leaving 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource and defines itself as the exact inverse of the named sibling lock_channel, including the scope of what it restores. An agent can distinguish it from set_channel_permissions or clear_channel_permissions without opening any 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?

States the condition that selects this tool (a prior lock_channel) and calls out the edge case where no lock exists, which is exactly the situation that requires a confirmation round-trip. It does not contrast with sibling alternatives such as clear_channel_permissions for plain permission resets, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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