discord-server-mcp

react

Add emoji reactions to Discord messages or remove the bot's own, a user's, specific emoji, or all reactions by channel and message ID, with dry-run previews.

Instructions

Add reactions to a message, or remove them (the bot's own, someone's, one emoji for everyone, or all).

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>",
      "message_id": "<message_id>"
    },
    "name": "react"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bot`	No	Use this bot (name or id) instead of choosing automatically
`user`	No	For remove "user"
`emojis`	No	Unicode emoji, <:name:id>, or a server emoji name
`remove`	No	Remove instead: mine, all reactions, every reaction of these emojis, or a user's
`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
`dry_run`	No	Show the requests that would be made without changing anything
`message_id`	Yes

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?

With only readOnlyHint=false supplied, the description usefully discloses the blast radius of the destructive path: removal can target all reactions or everyone's reactions on an emoji, not just the caller's. That is exactly the kind of scope-of-damage context annotations don't carry, though it doesn't mention permissions or whether removal is reversible.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the add operation first, then qualifies removal with the four applicable scopes. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, and the parenthetical does real work.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description conveys the add/remove duality and the removal scopes well, leaving server/bot targeting and dry_run to the schema, which covers them. Slightly incomplete on side effects and permissions, but nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is absent.

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 88%, so nearly every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the `remove` enum values and the emoji formats. The description's mention of removal targets largely restates that enum, adding little beyond it, so the 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 pairs a specific verb ('Add reactions') with a resource ('a message') and immediately covers the inverse operation (remove), so an agent knows this single tool does both directions. It doesn't name or contrast any sibling, but no sibling in the list closely overlaps in a way that would confuse selection.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The parenthetical enumerates the removal scopes ('the bot's own, someone's, one emoji for everyone, or all'), which tells an agent which situations map to the `remove` modes. It stops short of explicit exclusions or pointing to an alternative tool for related tasks like reading existing reactions.

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