Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Discord Vencord MCP Bridge

Discord Vencord MCP Bridge

by clawdecode
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

discord_remove_reaction

Removes your emoji reaction from a specified Discord message using message ID and emoji character, optionally targeting the active channel.

Instructions

Remove your emoji reaction from a message.

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": {
      "message_id": "<message_id>",
      "emoji": "<emoji>"
    },
    "name": "discord_remove_reaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emojiYesThe emoji character to remove.
channel_idNoChannel ID (defaults to active).
message_idYesThe ID of the target message.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

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 implies a mutation and that only 'your' own reaction can be removed, which is a useful constraint, but it says nothing about required permissions, idempotency, what happens if the reaction is absent, or the response.

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 waste. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than polished conciseness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple three-parameter action tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations, it should disclose more about permissions and failure behavior when the reaction is not present.

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%, so all three parameters (emoji, channel_id, message_id) are already documented. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Remove your emoji reaction from a message'), which is clearly distinguishable from the sibling discord_add_reaction. It does not explicitly name the counterpart tool, so it stops short of 5.

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?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. It only implies the obvious reverse of adding a reaction; an agent gets no routing guidance beyond the name.

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