Calculate how many inactive Discord members would be pruned based on a specified number of inactivity days. Plan server cleanups by previewing the prune count before removing members.
Calculate the number of inactive members that would be pruned
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Number of days of inactivity (1-30, default: 7) | |
| 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 burden. It implicitly conveys that this is a non-destructive calculation rather than the actual prune, which is useful behavioral context, but it omits explicit statements about permissions, whether bots are counted, or what the returned count represents.
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 or redundancy. Every word contributes to stating the operation and its output.
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 a simple two-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description is adequate to convey the operation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should do more to clarify that this is read-only, how the count relates to prune_members, and any permission expectations.
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%, so the schema already documents both 'days' (with range and default) and 'guildId' (with its fallback). The description adds no parameter-level detail 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb ('Calculate') and resource ('number of inactive members that would be pruned'), making the operation clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the actual pruning sibling by saying 'would be pruned,' but it never names prune_members or explicitly states this is a preview, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
Usage is only implied: the phrase 'would be pruned' suggests a preview or dry-run use case before calling prune_members, but the description never states when to use this tool instead of prune_members, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.