discord-server-mcp

kick_member

Destructive

Remove a member from a Discord server with an optional audit-log reason; use preview or dry-run before confirming, since the removed member can rejoin with an invite.

Instructions

Remove a member from the server (they can rejoin with an 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
`bot`	No	Use this bot (name or id) instead of choosing automatically
`member`	Yes
`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.
`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

A3.8/5.0

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 safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the kicked user can rejoin via a new invite, which tells the agent this is a soft removal rather than a permanent exclusion.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the consequence. No redundant or filler wording.

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 destructive six-parameter tool with annotations and full schema descriptions, the definition covers what the action does and its after-state. The confirmation/preview gate is only described in the schema, not the description, which is a minor residual gap rather than a blocking one.

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 83%, so the schema already documents bot, reason, server, confirm, and dry_run. The description contributes nothing about any of the six parameters, 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?

The description gives a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('a member from the server'), and the parenthetical 'they can rejoin with an invite' implicitly separates it from ban_member by stating the action is reversible. It does not name the sibling tool, so differentiation is semantic rather than explicit.

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 reversibility note implies when to pick kick over ban, but the description never states the selection rule or any prerequisites (permissions, hierarchy). Guidance is inferred rather than given.

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