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

Unpin message

unpin_message

Remove a pinned message from a Discord channel using its message ID or link; the message itself remains unchanged.

Instructions

Unpin a message. The message itself is untouched.

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>",
      "message_id": "<message_id>"
    },
    "name": "unpin_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
guildNoGuild (server) name or ID. Omit to use the default guild.
reasonNo
channelYesChannel name or ID.
message_idYesMessage ID, or the message's link.

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 / message_id / description
      Added value: +"Message ID, or the message's link."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.3.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  3. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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 safety profile is partly covered; the sentence "The message itself is untouched" usefully reinforces that the operation removes only the pin, consistent with the annotations. However, it omits failure behavior (what happens if the message is not pinned), permission requirements, and whether channel/guild defaults apply.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by a scoping clarification; no wasted wording. It could have used the second sentence to carry more behavioral detail rather than only the non-destruction note.

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 two-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and adequate annotation coverage, the description covers the essential effect and its non-destructive nature. The remaining gaps (permissions, not-pinned edge case) are minor rather than blocking for correct invocation.

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 75%, with guild, channel, and message_id already documented in the schema, so parameter semantics are largely handled structurally. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters or the optional reason field, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Unpin a message") that an agent can differentiate from pin_message and delete_message without opening a schema. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it inverts, so it is clear but not maximally distinguishing.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., delete_message) and no preconditions such as requiring the message to currently be pinned or requiring manage-message permissions. Only implicit usage context is provided by the tool name itself.

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