Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
better-discord-mcp

better-discord-mcp

by Sys0xdbg
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

discord_kick_user

Kicks a specified user from a Discord guild. Requires confirmation and Kick Members permission.

Instructions

Kick a user from a guild (requires Kick Members).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "guildId": "<guildId>",
      "userId": "<userId>"
    },
    "name": "discord_kick_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNo
userIdYes
confirmNoSet true to actually perform this destructive action
guildIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions the required permission but fails to state that kicking is non-permanent, that the user can rejoin, or that the action is destructive (though the 'confirm' parameter in the schema hints at destructiveness). The description adds minimal value beyond the action name.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at one sentence, but this brevity comes at the cost of missing essential information. It earns a middle score as it is not verbose but is under-specified.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on how kick differs from ban or timeout, the optionality of 'reason', and the consequences of the action, leaving the agent underinformed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only 'confirm' described). The description does not explain 'guildId', 'userId', or 'reason', nor does it add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides. It fails to compensate for the low coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'Kick a user from a guild' and includes a required permission, making the purpose explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like discord_ban_user or discord_timeout_user, preventing a top score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to kick vs. ban vs. timeout). There is no mention of appropriate contexts or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools