mcp-discord-bridge

remove_reaction

Remove a specific emoji reaction added by the bot from a Discord message. Provide channel, message ID, and emoji to clear the reaction.

Instructions

Remove the bot's 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": {
      "channel_id": "<channel_id>",
      "message_id": "<message_id>",
      "emoji": "<emoji>"
    },
    "name": "remove_reaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`channel_id`	Yes
`message_id`	Yes
`emoji`	Yes	Emoji to remove

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedMay 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It clarifies that only the bot's own reactions are removed, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose error handling (e.g., if no reaction exists) or permission requirements.

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?

A single sentence that conveys the essential purpose with no wasted words. The structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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 the tool has 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal but covers the core functionality. It lacks context on edge cases, permissions, and result expectations, which is a gap for completeness.

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 33% (only 'emoji' has a description). The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, leaving channel_id and message_id undocumented.

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), the actor (bot's), the object (emoji reaction), and the target (message). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like add_reaction.

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, such as when removing reactions from other users or handling non-bot reactions. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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