Discord Vencord MCP Bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

discord_modify_member

Update a Discord member's nickname, voice mute or deaf state, or apply a timeout using their user ID and optional server ID.

Instructions

Modify a member's nickname, mute/deaf state, or apply a timeout.

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": {
      "user_id": "<user_id>"
    },
    "name": "discord_modify_member"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`deaf`	No	Deafen user in voice.
`mute`	No	Mute user in voice.
`nick`	No	New nickname.
`user_id`	Yes	Target user ID.
`guild_id`	No	Server ID (defaults to active server).
`communication_disabled_until`	No	Timeout ISO timestamp (e.g. 2026-12-01T00:00:00.000Z).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It never mentions required permissions (Mute Members / Moderate Members), whether changes are reversible, the timeout maximum duration, or what the response contains. For a privileged mutation with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing behavioral detail noted elsewhere.

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?

A 6-parameter moderation mutation with no annotations and no output schema needs more: permission requirements, timeout limits, side effects on voice state, and error conditions are all absent. The description is not sufficient on its own for safe invocation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter already documents itself, including an ISO example for communication_disabled_until. The description merely restates the field set and adds no semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Modify') and resource ('a member') and enumerates the mutable fields (nickname, mute/deaf, timeout). It does not distinguish itself from adjacent moderation siblings such as discord_kick_member or discord_ban_member, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus kick/ban/assign_role, nor any statement of prerequisites or exclusions. The agent gets a capability list but no routing logic.

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

Deploy Server