Remove a user from a Discord server by user ID, with an optional audit log reason; the member can rejoin if invited.
Kick a member from the server. They can rejoin if an invite is available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Audit log reason | |
| userId | Yes | User ID to kick | |
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key trait that the kick is not permanent ('can rejoin if an invite is available'), but omits required permissions, audit-log implications, rate limits, and whether the action is logged or notified. This is useful but incomplete.
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?
Two short sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, and the key behavioral qualifier follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The tool is a moderation action with no annotations and no output schema. The description covers the action and its reversibility, but does not mention permissions needed or other side effects, which an agent might need for correct invocation. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, making the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
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 and resource ('Kick a member from the server') and adds that the member can rejoin, which behaviorally distinguishes it from ban_member. It does not name any sibling tool explicitly, so a 4 is appropriate.
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?
The description implies usage context by noting the member can rejoin, suggesting it is for reversible removal. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus ban_member, timeout_member, or prune_members, leaving alternatives to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.