discord-server-mcp

delete_channel

Destructive

Permanently delete a Discord channel, category, or thread with a required confirmation step. Preview the action first, then remove it for good; channels in a deleted category are kept.

Instructions

Delete a channel, category or thread. Cannot be undone. Channels inside a deleted category are kept, without category.

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": "<channel>"
    },
    "name": "delete_channel"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bot`	No	Use this bot (name or id) instead of choosing automatically
`reason`	No	Reason shown in the server's audit log
`server`	No	Server name or id. Optional when the bot is in one server or DISCORD_GUILD_ID is set.
`channel`	Yes	Channel or thread name, id, or message link
`confirm`	No	Must be true to really do this permanent action; without it you get a preview
`dry_run`	No	Show the requests that would be made without changing anything

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's added value is the permanence warning and the cascade rule that channels under a deleted category survive as uncategorized. That is a non-obvious side effect worth disclosing; it omits whether the channel's messages/history are also purged.

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 short sentences, scope first and the irreversible/cascade warning second. No padding or restated title.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a permanent mutation, the description supplies irreversibility and the category-child behavior, while annotations carry the destructive flag and the schema carries confirm/dry_run. It is nearly complete, with only the fate of channel contents left unstated.

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 of the six parameters is documented there, including the confirm gate and dry_run preview, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about the channel identifier formats or the confirm semantics.

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?

States a specific destructive verb plus the exact resource set (channel, category, thread), which cleanly separates it from the create_/edit_ siblings. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Destructive intent is implied by 'Delete' and reinforced by 'Cannot be undone', but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g. edit_channel, delete_role) and no stated prerequisite about confirm=true beyond the schema. Usage context is inferable rather than guided.

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