discord-mcp

Kick member

kick_member

Remove a member from your Discord server. They can rejoin later with a new invite.

Instructions

Remove a member from the server. They can rejoin with a new invite.

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": {
      "member": "<member>"
    },
    "name": "kick_member"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`member`	Yes	Member to kick (id, @mention, or username).
`reason`	No	Reason recorded in the audit log.
`server`	No	Server (guild) name or id. Optional when the bot is in a single server or DISCORD_GUILD_ID is set.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the member can rejoin, but omits permissions required, side effects (e.g., audit log entry), or error conditions. Inadequate for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two concise sentences, no filler. The purpose and key behavioral note are front-loaded, making it efficient.

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?

Given no annotations or output schema, the description covers the core purpose but lacks details on prerequisites, failure modes, or return value. Adequate but with notable gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with adequate parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Remove a member') and distinguishes from ban by noting the member can rejoin with a new invite. This differentiates it from sibling tool 'ban_member' effectively.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for temporary removal (rejoinable) but does not explicitly state when to use kick vs alternatives like ban or timeout, nor provide any exclusions. Guidance is vague.

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