Remove inactive members with no roles from a Discord server after a configurable inactivity period, recording an optional audit reason.
Prune inactive members from the server who have no roles
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Number of days of inactivity (1-30, default: 7) | |
| reason | No | Audit log reason | |
| 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 full burden but only implies a bulk destructive operation. It does not disclose permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, what happens to pruned members, or rate limits. The mention of 'no roles' hints at a safety pre-check but is insufficient.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's purpose.
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?
Given this is a destructive bulk operation with no annotations or output schema and only a terse description, critical behavioral context is missing. An agent cannot determine required permissions, reversibility, or expected outcomes.
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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning beyond implying a days threshold, which is already defined in the schema. Baseline 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 specifies a clear verb (prune) and resource (members) with a filter scope (inactive, no roles), which distinguishes it from siblings like kick_member or ban_member. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from get_prune_count, its closest sibling.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_prune_count or individual kicks. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for appropriate usage are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.