discord_delete_scheduled_eventDelete a Discord scheduled event using guild and event IDs, with optional confirmation and audit reason to manage guild events safely.
Delete a Discord scheduled event.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| eventId | Yes | ||
| guildId | Yes | ||
| backupId | No | ||
| allowWithoutBackup | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| error | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Yet the description adds nothing: it does not say the deletion is permanent, whether a reason is audited, or why confirm, backupId, and allowWithoutBackup exist. Those schema fields strongly imply a confirmation/backup gate that is left entirely undisclosed.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise for a destructive tool with six parameters. Brevity here comes at the cost of the information the agent needs.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and annotations cover destructiveness. But for a destructive, non-idempotent operation with an undocumented confirmation/backup workflow, the definition omits behavior an agent must know to invoke it safely.
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 0% across 6 parameters, and the description explains none of them. Critical fields such as confirm, backupId, and allowWithoutBackup carry non-obvious semantics that neither schema nor description clarify, so the description fully fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 names a specific verb and resource (delete a scheduled event), so the operation itself is unmistakable. However, it is essentially the tool name and title restated as a sentence and adds no scope detail such as whether the event is cancelled/notified or what a deletion affects. An agent learns nothing beyond what the identifier already told it.
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 statement of when to use this tool, no mention of the sibling tools (discord_list_scheduled_events, discord_create_scheduled_event, discord_update_scheduled_event), and no guidance on prerequisites. Given the presence of confirm/backup parameters in the schema, the absence of any guidance on the required workflow is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed