discp

delete_channel_permission

Remove a permission overwrite for a role or member from a channel. Specify channel and target IDs to revoke channel-specific permissions.

Instructions

Delete a permission overwrite for a role or member from a channel

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": {
      "channelId": "<channelId>",
      "targetId": "<targetId>"
    },
    "name": "delete_channel_permission"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`reason`	No	Audit log reason
`targetId`	Yes	Role ID or User ID of overwrite to delete
`channelId`	Yes	Channel ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says a deletion occurs, but never states required bot permissions, whether the operation is irreversible, what happens to the channel's effective permissions afterward, or how it behaves when no overwrite exists for the target. For an unannotated mutation tool this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and zero padding. Efficient, though it is a bare minimum of text rather than a well-rounded definition.

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

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A destructive three-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema needs more: auth requirements, reversibility, and the relationship to the upsert_* siblings are all absent. The description is not sufficient for an agent to call this confidently in context.

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% (reason, targetId, channelId each documented), so the baseline is 3. The description's 'for a role or member' and 'from a channel' loosely mirror targetId and channelId but add no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

Clear specific verb (Delete) plus resource (a permission overwrite for a role or member on a channel), and the 'role or member' phrasing signals scope. It does not name the sibling it complements (upsert_role_channel_permissions / upsert_member_channel_permissions) or the list tool, so an agent gets the action but no explicit differentiation.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to the sibling upsert_* tools that create the very overwrites this deletes. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server