discord-server-mcp

remove_bot

Destructive

Remove a saved Discord bot from this computer while keeping it active on Discord and in its servers. Preview the permanent action first, then confirm to complete it.

Instructions

Forget a saved bot on this computer (the bot itself stays on Discord and in its servers).

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": {
      "bot": "<bot>"
    },
    "name": "remove_bot"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bot`	Yes
`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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful blast-radius context — the Discord-side bot and its server memberships survive — but says nothing about irreversibility or the confirm/dry_run gating beyond what the schema already documents.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and the qualifier, with no filler. The parenthetical earns its place by preventing a common misreading of what gets deleted.

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 3-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers the critical question (what is and is not destroyed) and annotations cover safety. Minor gaps remain around post-removal state, such as whether any local credentials or configuration tied to the bot are also discarded.

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 67% and the two documented parameters (confirm, dry_run) carry their own explanations, so the structured data does most of the work. The description only implies the 'bot' parameter by reference to 'a saved bot' and adds no identifier format or lookup hints.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (forget a saved bot) and immediately bounds the scope with a parenthetical: the bot remains on Discord and in its servers. That distinguishes it from add_bot/list_bots/use_bot in spirit, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the local-only framing (forget a bot saved *on this computer*), which helps an agent rule out server-level operations. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no warning about when this tool should not be chosen.

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