Server mute or deafen a member in Discord voice channels across a guild using their User ID, with optional audit reason and guild ID.
Server mute or deafen a member in voice channels across the server
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mute | No | Server mute microphone | |
| deafen | No | Server deafen audio | |
| reason | No | Audit log reason | |
| userId | Yes | Target User ID | |
| 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 for a mutation tool. It doesn't state whether the action is reversible (unmute/undeafen path), what happens if both mute and deafen are set, or what permissions are required, leaving significant gaps.
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 efficient sentence with the action and scope front-loaded and no wasted words. It is terse to the point of omitting useful behavior, but structurally sound.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits reversibility, permission needs, and interaction between the mute/deafen flags, which an agent needs to invoke it correctly.
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 each parameter is already documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntactic or semantic detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific verb (server mute or deafen) and resource (a member in voice channels), which is clear and actionable. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like move_voice_member or disconnect_voice_member, so it lands just short of the top score.
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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing mute vs deafen, and no mention of alternatives such as move_voice_member or disconnect_voice_member. An agent must infer the context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.