Permanently remove a custom emoji from a Discord server by ID, with an optional audit log reason. Use it when an emoji is outdated, unwanted, or needs cleanup.
Permanently delete a custom emoji from the server
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Audit log reason | |
| emojiId | Yes | Emoji ID to delete | |
| guildId | No | Discord server ID (defaults to DISCORD_GUILD_ID) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 discloses only one trait, permanence, and omits required permissions, whether the emoji disappears from existing message reactions, and whether the operation is recoverable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the most important word ('Permanently') appears early. It is efficient, though the same brevity leaves behavioral gaps that a slightly longer description could close.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an irreversible destructive operation with zero annotations and no output schema, the description should state permission requirements and side effects. Instead it offers one sentence, leaving the agent to infer everything beyond irreversibility.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with emojiId, guildId, and reason each documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no format, default, or semantic detail beyond what the schema already states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Permanently delete') and resource ('a custom emoji on the server'), which cleanly separates it from sibling create_emoji and edit_emoji. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or the scope qualifier, so a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), and no routing to alternative tools such as edit_emoji when the goal is modification rather than removal. The phrase 'Permanently delete' hints the action is irreversible but does not frame it as a usage caution.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.