Dc-MCP
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v1.0.0
- Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target a distinct resource and action, but `discord_analyze_server`, `discord_server_structure`, and `discord_server_info` have overlapping server-overview purposes, and `discord_remove_role` versus `discord_delete_role` require careful reading of the descriptions.
Naming Consistency4/5The tools consistently use the `discord_` prefix with snake_case and generally follow a verb_noun pattern. Minor deviations include noun-only names such as `discord_server_structure` and `discord_server_info`, plus mixed deletion vocabulary (`delete`, `remove`, `unban`, `unpin`).
Tool Count1/5With 55 tools, this exceeds the 50+ threshold and becomes a very large surface for an agent to navigate. Although the tools are logically grouped by Discord domain, the count is excessive and could cause model/agent selection overload.
Completeness4/5The toolkit covers the main Discord management workflows well: channels, roles, members, messages, permissions, invites, webhooks, admin actions, and audit logs. Obvious gaps include thread management, emoji/sticker management, voice-state controls, and some server-level setting edits.
Average 3/5 across 54 of 55 tools scored. Lowest: 1.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Edit channel properties' without stating whether it performs partial updates, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. It does not disclose anything beyond the bare fact of mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one sentence), which is concise in length, but it is under-specified. For a tool with 9 parameters, this brevity does not earn its place—it provides little actionable information and would be better replaced with a more detailed yet still compact summary.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema displayed), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what properties can be changed, whether changes are reversible, what the response format is, or any prerequisites. An agent lacks essential context to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers 9 parameters with 0% coverage (no descriptions within the schema). The description does not mention any parameters or their meanings, forcing the agent to rely solely on parameter names like 'slowmode_delay' and 'category_id', which are insufficient for correct invocation. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource ('Edit channel properties') but is generic and does not differentiate from sibling tools like discord_move_channel (which changes position) or discord_set_channel_permissions. It is essentially a restatement of the tool name without specifying which properties are editable or how it differs from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention which properties this can edit, nor does it provide exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools. An agent receives no contextual help in selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so how the description carries the full disclosure burden. It only states that a channel is created, which implies mutation, but never discloses the effect of a voice — such as requiring server manage permissions, live creation of this channel, default override semantics, or consequences of duplicate names. Genuine behavioral context is absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The sentence is short and front-loaded, but the tool is a mutating operation with 8 parameters; a one-line restatement of the name is notiically under-specified rather than concise. The single sentence does not earn its place beyond repeating what the name already says.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists, the description provides none of the context needed to call the tool correctly: whichappings are required vs optional, how 'guil_id' selects the target server, how 'category_id' positions the new channel, or how this slot among more than fifty Discord sibling tools should be chosen. Essential targeting information is completely missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for 8 parameters, so the description must compensate — and it mentions no parameters at all. An agent invoking the tool gets no semantic-bound information about the required 'name' parameter, 'guild_id' targeting, or optional 'bitrate' and 'user_limit' behaviors.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a voice channel' is a pure restatement of the tool name — same verb, same resource — and adds zero information beyond it. The intent is clear, but it fails to distinguish the tool from its create_* siblings and qualifies as a tautology.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus discord_create_text_channel, discord_create_category, discord_create_forum, or discord_edit_channel. It lacks prerequisites (such as needing a valid guilguid) and provides no exclusion criteria for the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only says 'Create a text channel' with no mention of side effects, permission requirements, whether the channel is created in a specific guild, or what happens if a channel with the same name already exists. This is significantly under-disclosed for a mutating operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (only four words), but this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. There is no structure, no front-loading of critical information, and no elaboration on the many parameters. It does not earn its place because it offers no value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 9 parameters and an output schema, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain return values, mention any side effects, or clarify how parameters like 'guild_id', 'position', or 'category_id' interact. An agent has no guidance on how to invoke this tool correctly, making it inadequate for its complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema (only titles and types). The tool description adds zero meaning about the parameters, such as what 'name' should be, how 'nsfw' works, or what 'overwrites' refers to. It completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Create' and the resource 'text channel', leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tools discord_create_voice_channel, discord_create_category, or discord_create_forum_channel, so it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context is given about prerequisites (e.g., needing a server or category), nor any exclusion criteria. The description simply states the action, leaving the agent to infer when to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states the action in high-level terms and does not mention required server context, permission/overwrite effects, errors, idempotency, or any constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The one-sentence description is non-repetitive and easy to read, but it is under-specified rather than elegantly concise given that this is a 5-parameter mutation tool with no schema descriptions to fall back on.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With five parameters, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage, this description is not nearly complete enough for the tool's complexity. The output schema may document return shape, but operational context such as why/when to create a category and how settings interplay is absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no guidance for any of the five params: name, reason, guild_id, position, or overwrites. Agents must guess all semantic meaning from parameter titles alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('category channel'), so an agent can immediately understand what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like discord_create_text_channel and discord_create_voice_channel only by the resource type, not by explicit comparison.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternative channel creation tools. The agent is not told when a category channel is appropriate, what prerequisites exist, or how this differs from creating a text/voice/forum channel.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are entirely absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely repeats the operation implied by the name and does not disclose that deletion is permanent/irreversible, what permissions are required (e.g., Manage Messages for other users' messages), or what the confirm parameter's default of false actually gates.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and front-loaded, but the brevity is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness — a five-word sentence cannot adequately document a destructive operation with five parameters, a confirmation gate, and permission requirements.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, but the description still leaves a destructive tool under-documented with no annotation support. The confirm-flag behavior, permission preconditions, and irreversible consequences are all missing, so an agent cannot safely or correctly invoke this tool based on the definition alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds nothing about any of the five parameters. It does not explain what channel_id, message_id, guild_id, reason, or confirm mean, and the confirm flag (defaulting to false) is particularly underspecified for a destructive tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Delete a single message.' The word 'single' gives some implicit differentiation from sibling tools like discord_bulk_delete_messages and discord_purge_messages, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like discord_bulk_delete_messages, discord_purge_messages, and discord_edit_message, an agent receives no explicit instructions about which tool fits which scenario, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description alone must carry behavioral disclosure. 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state that it is non-destructive, whether it requires special permissions, or what happens on invalid IDs. It adds very little beyond the tool name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no filler or redundant content, which makes it concise and easy to parse. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness, earning a slight penalty.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no annotations and a 0% schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It does not explain the optional guild_id, does not mention expected output details, and provides no differentiation from related channel tools. An agent would likely need to guess or inspect the schema in detail.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining both parameters. It fails to do so: channel_id is only implied by 'channel', and guild_id is entirely unexplained despite being optional. The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (details for a guild channel), making the tool's core purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like discord_list_channels or discord_get_role, leaving the agent to infer the distinction from the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of needing an existing channel_id, no note about how it differs from listing channels, and no conditions for choosing this over discord_get_member or discord_get_role. The agent is left to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without detailing response format, error handling, permission requirements, rate limits, or side effects. Since this is a read operation with zero annotation coverage, significant behavioral context is missing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While the single sentence is technically concise, it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. It omits essential details about parameters and usage, so it fails the requirement that every sentence earns its place by providing valuable information. Terseness without substance scores low.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description remains incomplete. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., needing channel_id and message_id), how this differs from similar message-fetching tools, or when to prefer it. The description is too sparse to enable correct selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter explanations. The description must compensate but does not—it never mentions channel_id, message_id, or guild_id, nor their roles. The phrase 'by ID' is too vague to clarify which IDs are needed or why guild_id is optional.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Fetch a single message by ID' clearly states the specific verb (Fetch) and resource (a single message by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like discord_get_recent_messages, which fetch multiple messages, and discord_get_channel, which fetches a channel. The purpose is unambiguous and non-tautological.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as discord_get_recent_messages or discord_search_members. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or alternative tools. The description is a bare statement with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description simply restates the operation without explaining consequences, permission requirements, or state changes beyond the obvious pin being removed. It does not mention that unpinning does not delete the message, whether MANAGE_MESSAGES permission is required, or whether the action is idempotent if the message is not currently pinned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, compact sentence with no wasted words. It is not over-written, but it is so sparse that it does little beyond restating the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation operation with no annotations, no explicit output guidance in the text, and no parameter-level descriptions, the definition is incomplete. An agent reading only the description cannot determine permission needs, the optional audit-log reason usage, or edge cases such as unpinning a message that is not pinned.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has four parameters, including the required channel_id and message_id plus optional reason and guild_id, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning. With essentially zero schema description coverage, the description should compensate by clarifying what each id is used for, but it does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a concrete verb and resource: unpin a message, with the channel as the location. It is clear enough to understand the tool's basic job, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like discord_pin_message or discord_delete_message, relying mostly on the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as deleting a message or editing a message's contents. The intended use case is implied by the verb 'unpin,' but no contextual conditions, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use notes are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure; it only states the creation action and reveals nothing about required permissions, the side effect of permanently creating a channel, or how parameters like overwrites and slowmode_delay affect the result. For a mutating resource-creation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The four-word sentence is front-loaded, direct, and contains no wasted words; it is easy to read and fully announces the tool's purpose. It is terse relative to the tool's complexity, but it is a complete sentence that earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and zero parameter descriptions, a one-line description is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. The output schema helps with return values, but the agent still lacks understanding of required inputs like guild_id, overwrite semantics, and the implications of nsfw/slowmode for forum channels.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 9 parameters, so the description was expected to compensate but names no parameters at all. Required fields like guild_id, category_id, and overwrites have no semantic explanation anywhere, leaving the agent to guess from titles alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb+resource ('Create a forum channel') and the resource type itself differentiates it from the many sibling creation tools (discord_create_text_channel, discord_create_voice_channel, discord_create_category). It is clear but relies on the tool's name for differentiation rather than explicitly contrasting with siblings, so it does not earn a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to create a forum channel versus a text, voice, or category channel. The description omits any prerequisites, such as an existing guild or category, so the agent has no context to decide correctly among the large sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'Fetch', implying a read operation, but fails to mention permission requirements, rate limits, default behavior, or what the returned data contains. No additional behavioral context is given.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. While it is under-specified, the conciseness itself is appropriate; the issue is lack of content, not verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (five optional parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions, and an output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter meanings, output format, pagination, or usage context, leaving an agent unable to make informed decisions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on any of the five parameters. It merely says 'optional filters' without naming or explaining 'action', 'target_id', 'executor_id', etc. This is a critical gap since the schema provides no descriptions either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a resource ('guild audit log entries'), and scope ('with optional filters'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools, none of which reference audit logs, making the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states the action without context on typical use cases or conditions that would make it preferable to other retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It discloses a mutation action and the changeable attributes, but says nothing about required permissions, ordering behavior, what 'position' means relative to category_id, or whether this can be undone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and target, though additional behavioral context would improve it without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a mutating operation without annotations or schema descriptions, so the description is responsible for a lot. An output schema exists, but the description still lacks enough detail for an agent to confidently execute a move, especially regarding category/position interactions and any side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add parameter meaning. It does clarify that position and category are changeable and optional relative to each other, but it leaves 'channel_id', 'guild_id', and 'reason' completely unexplained and gives no context about position semantics or category_id behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Move'), the resource ('a channel'), and the available new states ('new position and/or category'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the overlapping sibling 'discord_edit_channel', but the focus on moving is evident.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not compare this operation to discord_edit_channel, which could also modify channel placement or settings, and there are no explicit conditions for selecting this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No behavioral annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. 'Purge' implies destructive behavior and the confirm note hints at a safety mechanism, but the description does not disclose irreversibility, required permissions, limits on what 'recent' means, or rate-limit/abuse considerations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately short and front-loaded, using two sentences with no filler. The phrase 'when enabled' is slightly ambiguous, but the overall structure is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with four parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks semantics for parameters, threshold of 'recent,' guild vs. channel targeting, and permission context. An agent would need to guess or rely on external guidance to call this safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides no parameter descriptions and the description gives no additional meaning for amount, channel_id, guild_id, or reason. It only hints at confirm's role, leaving most parameters ambiguously specified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Purge') and resource ('recent messages from a text channel'), making the core operation clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling discord_bulk_delete_messages, so it misses the top score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says what the tool does but never says when to use it instead of alternatives like discord_bulk_delete_messages or discord_delete_message. The only guidance is a vague confirmation requirement ('when enabled'), which is not enough to route an agent consistently.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Set' implies mutation, but it does not disclose whether it fully replaces the overwrite, how it interacts with existing allow/deny entries, what permissions are required, or whether the overwrite affects target-specific or server-wide defaults.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, and the core resource ('channel') and operation ('set permission overwrites') are front-loaded. It is concise, though perhaps at the expense of necessary behavioral and parameter detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 6 parameters, no annotations, no schema descriptions, and an output schema that is not shown, a single sentence is not enough. An agent needs to know allowed target references, allowed permission names, allow/deny semantics, and the effects of omitting either option to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. It adds some meaning to 'target' by mentioning @everyone, a role, or a member, but it does not explain the target format, valid allow/deny strings, the meaning of null defaults, or how guild_id/channel_id relate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action — setting permission overwrites on a channel — and names the three target categories: @everyone, a role, or a member. It is specific enough to distinguish from the get-side siblings like discord_get_channel_permissions, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with discord_set_role_permissions or discord_get_channel_permissions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus related tools such as discord_get_channel_permissions or discord_set_role_permissions. There is no mention of prerequisites, requirements, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Timeout a member for a duration in minutes' and gives no information about confirmation behavior, permission requirements, duration limits, reversibility, or what happens after the timeout is applied.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clean sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and gives the critical time unit, though it could have added more value with the same brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutating tool with five parameters and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain the confirm boolean, the role of guild_id, or any safety or failure considerations, so an agent may not call the tool correctly or safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only adds meaning for member_id and duration_minutes ('a member', 'duration in minutes'). It leaves reason, confirm, and guild_id entirely unexplained, which is a significant gap for an agent deciding how to populate all parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the operation ('Timeout a member') and the key resource ('a member'), plus the time unit. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like discord_remove_timeout, but the action is distinct enough for most AI agents to identify the intended use.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like discord_kick_member, discord_ban_member, or discord_remove_timeout. The description implies a temporary moderation action, but it never states explicit use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only states that the tool edits a bot-sent message; it does not disclose how nulling fields behaves, whether edits overwrite embed data, what permissions are needed, or what happens if the message is missing. For a mutation tool, this is a notable transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, front-loaded, and free of filler. However, the conciseness comes from under-specification: a single purpose-focused sentence provides no value for the tool's 9-parameter surface and complex optional embed fields.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so it doesn't need return-value details, but it has no annotations and no parameter documentation in the schema. Given that this is an edit operation with optional content and embed fields, the description is not sufficient for an agent to know exactly what the call will change or clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The agent is left to infer semantics from field names like content, embed_* , channel_id, and message_id, with no guidance on how these fields interact or when null is used to clear an existing value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb (edit), a resource (message), and an important qualifier: the message was previously sent by the bot. This distinguishes it from send_message, delete_message, and other message-related tools, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'previously sent by the bot' gives a clear condition: use this for modifying bot-authored messages, not messages from other users. However, it does not explicitly say which alternative to use for new messages or message removal, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it reveals nothing beyond what the verb 'Get' implies about read-only intent. It doesn't address error behavior for missing members, auth requirements, rate limits, or why guild_id is optional/nullable, leaving an agent without expectations for edge-case calls.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is compact, front-loaded with the verb, and contains zero filler words. It is under-specified in substance, but conciseness and structure themselves are clean, which is a structural strength rather than a weakness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema is present, which documents return values and reduces the burden. However, for a tool with two parameters and many sibling member-related tools, the description is too thin: it doesn't clarify when the member_id alone suffices, how guild_id affects the lookup, or what unique value this tool provides over discord_search_members and discord_get_member_permissions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to member_id or guild_id. It never explains that member_id identifies a guild-scoped user, whether guild_id is required to resolve the member, or the distinction between these parameters, so it completely fails to compensate for the absent schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear, specific verb ('Get') and resource ('details for a guild member'), making the primary action unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like discord_search_members, discord_list_members, or discord_get_member_permissions, leaving an agent to infer the distinction from tool names.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no exclusions, no conditions, and no mention that discord_search_members or discord_list_members should be preferred in other situations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action and a default target; it does not mention that remosing another user's reaction likely requires Manage Messages permission, whether the call is idempotent, or what happens if the reaction does not exist. These are important behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. No filler or repetition. The defaulting behavior is a high-value detail placed immediately after the verb phrase.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a side-effect-producing mutation tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions. Although an output schema exists, the description still leaves out permission semantics, the optional user_id behavior beyond defaulting, and error behavior. It is too sparse to fully support reliable agent invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description was expected to compensate. It adds meaning only for user_id via the default-bot's-own-reaction note. It does not explain emoji formatting, guild_id purpose, or any relationship between parameters beyond the domain's obvious message identification.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly says 'Remove a reaction', identifying a specific verb and resource. The additional sentence about defaulting to the bot's own reaction adds useful scope that distinguishes it from the related discord_add_reaction. It does not explicitly mention 'message' but the required channel_id and message_id make the context obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers one piece of guidance: that the bot's own reaction is the default. However, it does not explain when to prefer this over other reaction-related tools, nor when to pass a user_id, nor any permission or context conditions. This is minimal rather than explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add meaningful context by warning about the confirmation gate ('Requires confirm=true when confirmation is enabled'), which is a legitimate behavioral constraint. However, it omits critical traits of a destructive operation: the deletion is implied to be permanent, and there is no mention of permissions, cascading effects on messages, or what happens when confirmation is enabled but confirm=false.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The two sentences are economical and every word earns its place; the main action is front-loaded ('Delete a channel') and the precondition follows immediately. It loses a point only because it is so terse that it sacrifices behavioral and parameter context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a destructive 4-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations and 0% schema description coverage, yet the description fills almost none of that gap. It fails to explain the required channel_id semantics, the role of guild_id, whether deletion cascades to messages, or the behavior when confirmation is enabled but confirm is not true. Even with an output schema present, an agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description barely compensates. It offers a semantic hint about the confirm parameter (true required under confirmation), but leaves channel_id (the required parameter), reason, and guild_id entirely unexplained. An agent cannot confidently determine what guild_id does, whether reason is for an audit log, or what values are expected for the other parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'channel', clearly stating the tool's function. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like discord_delete_role, discord_delete_message, and discord_delete_invite by naming the channel as the target resource, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as discord_edit_channel or discord_move_channel. The only conditional guidance ('Requires confirm=true when confirmation is enabled') addresses a parameter requirement rather than tool selection. There are no when-not-to-use or exclusions noted.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one meaningful limitation (cannot edit roles above the bot) and implies mutation, but it omits other important behavioral details such as permission requirements, failure modes, or whether changes are applied immediately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded, clearly stating the action, resource, and a key limitation in just two short sentences. There is no filler or redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with nine parameters, no annotations, and many closely related sibling tools, this description is too thin. It explains one important limitation but does not clarify parameter semantics, required permissions, confirmation behavior, or how to route to alternative role tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description names none of the nine parameters. Parameters like 'confirm', 'hoist', and 'permissions' are opaque to an agent, especially 'confirm', which could easily be misinterpreted without explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action (edit) and resource (an existing role), which distinguishes it from create/delete role tools. However, it does not speak to how it differs from related role-modification siblings like discord_set_role_permissions or discord_move_role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implicitly signals the primary use case: editing a role. The constraint 'Cannot edit roles above the bot' provides an important condition, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like discord_set_role_permissions or discord_move_role.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates this is a read-like operation by saying 'Get', which is useful, and it correctly frames the tool as returning permission overwrites rather than computed effective permissions. However, with no annotations present, it does not explain what the caller needs, whether any filtering or normalization happens, what happens when no overwrites exist, or any authorization/precondition assumptions. The full burden falls on the description, and it only partially meets it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence that gets the core point across immediately without filler. Every word carries information: 'channel permission overwrites' sets the resource, and 'optionally for a specific target' covers the only optional filtering dimension stated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given an output schema is present, the return values do not need to be re-explained, and the named tool plus its simple resource make the main call reasonably clear. The missing semantics around guild_id and the lack of any sibling-routing guidance leaves gaps, but as a single-purpose read tool this is minimally adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It says 'optionally for a specific target', which clarifies the 'target' parameter meaningfully, and 'channel permission overwrites' implies channel_id's role. However, 'guild_id' is never described, and the description does not explain the relationship between channel_id, guild_id, and target, or whether target is a user-id, role-id, or something else.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('channel permission overwrites'), and it adds the optional target scope that distinguishes this from broader permission tools. It does not explicitly name other sibling tools, so it stops short of the strongest possible differentiation, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of related tools like discord_get_member_permissions, discord_get_role_permissions, or discord_get_channel_permissions. Only the behavior is stated; no context, exclusions, or alternatives are provided, so the agent must infer when this tool is the correct choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves permissions and gives no insight into behavior such as how it resolves conflicts between guild and channel permissions, whether permissions are combined or overridden, or whether an error occurs when insufficient context is provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler or redundant wording, and the key resource ('member permissions') is front-loaded. It is appropriately brief, though the brevity contributes to under-specification in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with three parameters and no annotation coverage, the description is incomplete: it fails to explain the relationship between guild_id and channel_id, whether at least one scope is required, and what the output represents. While the output schema exists, the input semantics are not sufficiently defined for an agent to reliably construct a valid call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by mapping member_id to the member and guild/channel to the permission-scope alternatives. However, it does not explain whether guild_id and channel_id are mutually exclusive, optional, or how they interact, leaving important semantic gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('a member's guild or channel permissions'), and the phrase 'member's' distinguishes it from sibling tools like discord_get_channel_permissions and discord_get_role_permissions. It is not perfectly specific, as it doesn't state whether it returns computed effective permissions or raw permission data, but the core purpose is clear.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and it does not clarify whether to pass guild_id, channel_id, or both. The single sentence describes what the tool does but not the conditions that should trigger its use or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action 'fetch recent messages' and does not disclose ordering, pagination, default limit, rate limits, or side effects. It implies a read operation but offers no additional behavioral details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly states the purpose at the start and omits unnecessary detail. It is appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Although an output schema exists, the description is incomplete for a tool with three parameters. It does not clarify the optional 'limit' and 'guild_id', nor does it set expectations about message ordering or count. For a read-heavy Discord tool, this is a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the meaning of 'limit' or 'guild_id', and only indirectly references 'channel' via 'from a channel'. It fails to compensate for the absence of schema parameter descriptions, leaving the agent without guidance on how to set optional fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Fetch recent messages' from a channel. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like discord_get_message (singular) and discord_list_channels (lists channels, not messages). The scope is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer discord_get_message (for a single message) or discord_list_channels (to enumerate channels). There is no exclusion condition or recommended context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It implies a read operation, but does not disclose permission requirements, what happens with the optional guild_id, or whether the bitfield is the raw stored value versus an effective computed permission set.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one tight, front-loaded sentence. It contains no filler and earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema likely covers the return values, so the brief description is partially sufficient. However, the optional guild_id parameter and the implications of role permission bitfields versus effective permissions are missing, making the definition minimally viable but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to explain both parameters; instead it adds little beyond the role_id concept. The optional guild_id is left completely unexplained, including when it is needed and what the null default means.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description has a specific verb, 'Get', and a clear resource, 'permission bitfield and flags for a role'. It distinguishes the tool from generic role retrieval, but does not explicitly clarify how it differs from discord_get_role or discord_get_member_permissions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided for when to choose this tool over alternatives such as discord_get_role, discord_get_member_permissions, or discord_set_role_permissions. The agent must infer the correct context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says what it does, not whether channel permissions are required, whether the pin is visible immediately, whether there are Discord pin limits, or what side effects happen.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is a single clean sentence with no filler words, so it is easy to parse and front-loaded. However, the brevity comes at the cost of operational detail that would make the description genuinely helpful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutating action with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too incomplete. An agent selecting this tool needs extra guidance on permissions, pin behavior, optional guild context, and why to choose this over discord_unpin_message or discord_list_pinned_messages.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description only echoes 'channel' and 'message', which maps weakly to channel_id and message_id. The optional parameters reason and guild_id get no explanatory value from the description, and the schema itself provides no param descriptions beyond titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Pin'), a specific resource ('a message'), and the location context ('in a channel'). It reads clearly different from sibling tools like discord_unpin_message or discord_list_pinned_messages, so an agent can grasp the operation without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no distinction from unpin or list pinned messages. The only use guidance is implicit in the operation name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the confirmation requirement, but it does not state that deleting a role is permanent and destructive, that associated permissions are removed, or that the audit log may record the reason. This is a significant gap for a delete operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two sentences and front-loads the core operation. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and low schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not address prerequisites, deletion consequences, guild context, or when this action is appropriate versus the many role-related siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only clarifies the confirm parameter condition. It does not explain the role of guild_id, role_id, or reason, leaving the agent to infer their meaning solely from property names and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action ('Delete a role') and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from the similar sibling discord_remove_role, which could be confused as an alternative way to 'remove' a role vs deleting it entirely.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives one important invocation condition: 'Requires confirm=true when confirmation is enabled.' It does not, however, explain when an agent should choose this tool over alternatives like discord_remove_role or discord_edit_role, so context is incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get detailed information' does indicate read-only disclosure, but the description does not cover the optional guild_id behavior, what 'detailed information' includes, or whether a default server is used when no id is supplied. It is not contradictory, just incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The entire description is one focused sentence with no extra words, cliches, or redundancies. It immediately delivers the primary purpose and resource, making it highly usable and memorable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the output schema partially reduces the need to document return values, the description does not cover the optional parameter's default, when to use this vs discord_analyze_server or discord_server_structure, and the operational context of 'server_info' relative to the broader Discord toolset. An agent might be able to invoke it, but not understand the most useful or intended calling pattern.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single guild_id parameter is never mentioned in the description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not compensate for the parameter because it does not explain what guild_id means, whether a null default corresponds to a current/generic server, or how the agent should supply it for this call.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a concrete verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('detailed information about a Discord guild/server'), clearly indicating this is a read/info tool. However, it is not explicitly differentiated from overlapping sibling tools like discord_analyze_server or discord_server_structure, so it loses the full 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. Despite many sibling tools with similar informational purposes, the description gives the agent no navigation context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the mutation and gives no detail on permissions, idempotency, failure modes, rate limits, or what happens if the message does not exist. This is a minimal disclosure with no extra context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized and gets straight to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the context provided is minimal. While an output schema exists, the missing details about emoji format, required permissions, and relationship to sibling tools make the description incomplete for an agent to confidently and correctly invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not clarify any parameter semantics beyond what the field names already imply. It does identify that an emoji is being added to a message, but channel_id, message_id, and emoji get no meaningful explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names the specific action ('Add a reaction emoji') and the target resource ('a message'). It is unambiguous and the verb distinguishes it from the only closely related sibling tool, discord_remove_reaction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus send_message, remove_reaction, or other message-related tools. The only implied usage is 'when you want to add a reaction,' which is not enough to direct an agent toward optimal tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It does reveal an important behavioral gate (confirmation requirement), which is not obvious from the schema. However, it gives no insight into moderation consequences, permission needs, or effects of delete_message_seconds, which are relevant for a destructive moderation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, delivering the core action in the first sentence and a key condition in the second. It could be slightly clearer about what 'confirmation is enabled' refers to, but overall it is appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with 5 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It omits details about the member_id requirement, delete_message_seconds semantics, and the behavior of the ban itself, although the presence of an output schema partially offsets the need to describe return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies the confirm parameter. Parameters like member_id, reason, guild_id, and delete_message_seconds are left to be inferred from their names and titles, with no added meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Ban a member', which is a specific verb and resource. It is clear enough to differentiate from many sibling tools like kick or unban, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate from siblings like discord_unban_member or discord_kick_member.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a practical invocation requirement: 'Requires confirm=true when confirmation is enabled.' This is a useful when-to-call requirement, but it does not provide any guidance about when to choose banning over alternatives like kicking or timeout, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the mutation itself. It does not mention that the invite requires the appropriate Discord permission, that the invite becomes a live shareable link, or how options like temporary, unique, max_age, and max_uses alter behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded, grammatically direct sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given seven parameters, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions, this definition is not complete enough for an agent to confidently choose or call the tool correctly. The existing output schema may cover return values, but the description still lacks permission, usage, and option semantics.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description names only the channel, leaving six other parameters effectively unexplained. channel_id is inferable, but the semantics of unique, temporary, max_age, max_uses, reason, and guild_id are not addressed, despite having defaults that materially change the invitation the tool creates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create an invite for a channel.' It is immediately distinguishable from sibling invite tools like discord_list_invites and discord_delete_invite, and from channel creation tools, because it names the invite as the object being created.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as discord_list_invites or discord_delete_invite. The intended use is only implied by the verb 'create,' with no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the role is placed below the bot's highest role, but it omits permission prerequisites (e.g., required bot permissions), side effects on existing role order, and whether role creation can fail or be reversed. This is only minimal transparency for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The entire description is a single front-loaded sentence: 'Create a new role below the bot's highest role.' Every word contributes essential meaning, and there is no filler or verbose context. It earns its place and is appropriately sized for this tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return values are likely covered, but the description still omits crucial contextual details for safely executing a mutation: which Discord permissions are required, how the 'below the bot's highest role' constraint behaves in different guilds, and what values the structured parameters expect. As a result, the agent is not fully equipped to invoke this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meanings to any of the seven parameters. An agent receives no guidance on how to encode color, what strings to pass for permissions, the semantics of hoist and mentionable, or how guild_id selects the guild. The single sentence does not compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Title and description clearly state the action: 'Create a new role.' It also specifies the important positioning constraint 'below the bot's highest role,' which distinguishes it from role-editing, role-deleting, role-assigning, and role-moving siblings. This is a concrete verb-resource pair with added scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for creating a role and establishes a positional constraint, but it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool instead of alternatives like discord_edit_role, discord_move_role, or discord_assign_role. No negative guidance is provided, but the create verb doesn't mislead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation, but there is no disclosure about permissions, pagination, what channel data is returned, or how a possible null guild_id behaves. Basic transparency is present, but depth is thin.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is six words and every word contributes. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the basic purpose is reasonably complete. However, with no annotations and no parameter-level help, the description leaves the optional guild_id semantics and the boundary between this and sibling tools under-explained. It is a minimum-height viable definition, with room to improve.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds nothing meaningful beyond the word 'guild' for guild_id. The parameter name is self-descriptive, but the null/default behavior and how the tool selects a guild are undocumented in both the schema and the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('List') and resource ('channels') with a clear scope ('in a guild'), and the word 'all' distinguishes it from targeted tools like discord_get_channel. It lacks an explicit contrast with siblings, but the core purpose is unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over discord_get_channel, or what happens if guild_id is omitted. The appropriate usage is only implied by the verb and resource, not explicitly described.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does add a meaningful behavioral caveat—the need for the Server Members Intent—and implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or which members are included, so the extra context is useful but limited.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence with no filler, and the most operationally important caveat is placed right in the sentence. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is low-complexity and has an output schema, so return-value prose is unnecessary. Still, for an agent invoking the tool, the optional/nullable guild_id and limit semantics are not explained, which leaves a non-trivial completeness gap. Overall it is minimally usable but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only vaguely maps to guild_id through 'in a guild' while saying nothing about limit. It does not explain that guild_id is optional/nullable or what limit controls, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The phrase 'List members in a guild' names a specific verb and resource, and 'guild' clarifies the scope. It is clearly distinct from 'get member' or 'search members' in the sibling list, though it does not explicitly call out any sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The Server Members Intent note is a prerequisite, not a selection rule, and the description does not contrast with discord_get_member or discord_search_members.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
'Replace' is a meaningfully transparent signal: it implies the existing permission set is overwritten, not merged. The mention of confirm=true also surfaces a safety guard. However, with no annotations, it does not disclose side effects, authorization expectations, or what happens to unlisted permissions, so the behavioral disclosure is only partial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences, no filler, and the core behavior is front-loaded before the confirmation caveat. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimally viable: an agent can infer that this overwrites permissions and may need a confirm flag. But it lacks context about when confirmation is enabled, what permission strings are allowed, and how the optional parameters behave. The presence of an output schema helps, but the five-parameter surface still needs more explanation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate for the five parameters, but it only loosely hints at role_id and permissions through 'a role's permissions'. It does add meaning to confirm by requiring true when confirmation is enabled, but leaves permission string format, reason, and guild_id behavior entirely unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb and resource: 'Replace a role's permissions', so an agent can identify this as a destructive permission write on a role. It also surfaces the confirmation requirement. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like discord_get_role_permissions or discord_set_channel_permissions, so it stops short of full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given for when to choose this tool over the many role/channel permission siblings. It does not mention prerequisites like needing a guild_id or role to exist, and the phrase 'when confirmation is enabled' is vague. The description carries no context for tool selection beyond naming the operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful operational behavior: that confirm=true may be required when confirmation is enabled. However, it stays silent on permissions needed, whether the kick is reversible, and how failures are surfaced — significant gaps for a member-removal mutation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the core action. The confirmation requirement earns its place because it triggers a critical parameter decision.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the definition is incomplete for an operation of this weight: it does not explain which guild the member is removed from when guild_id is null, how the confirmation gate is enabled, or any failure behavior. With zero schema parameter descriptions and no annotations, the text leaves too much for the agent to infer.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the four parameters, but it only vaguely touches the confirm parameter and ignores reason, guild_id, and member_id semantics. The schema alone provides names, types, and defaults, yet the description adds practically no meaning beyond what is already structured.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action and target ('Kick a member from the guild'), which is immediately distinguishable from siblings like discord_ban_member, discord_timeout_member, and discord_unban_member. It does not explicitly name or contrast these siblings, but the verb 'kick' makes the intent unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied: this tool is for removing a member temporarily (as opposed to banning or timing out), but the description never states when to choose kick over ban or gives any exclusions. The confirmation note is an operational requirement, not an explicit routing guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- 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 behavioral burden. 'List all roles in a guild' implies a non-destructive read operation, but it does not disclose any required permissions, potential size limits, or pagination behavior. The description adds no nuance beyond the obvious action, making it minimally adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with the core action front-loaded. There is no redundant information or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool, the description states the basic function, and the presence of an output schema presumably covers return details. However, it lacks any explanation of the optional 'guild_id' parameter and omits potential behavioral considerations (e.g., whether all roles are returned regardless of permissions). It is barely sufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has a single optional parameter 'guild_id' with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain the purpose of this parameter, what happens when it is omitted, or how it relates to the 'guild' mentioned. With no schema documentation and no compensation in the description, the agent cannot infer the parameter's meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List'), the resource ('roles'), and the scope ('in a guild'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like discord_get_role that target a specific role. It is unambiguous and specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like discord_get_role or discord_analyze_server. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The context of when to invoke this tool is left entirely to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
It discloses a key constraint (must be below bot's highest role) but omits other behavioral aspects such as required permissions (e.g., Manage Roles), side effects (e.g., reordering of other roles), and error conditions. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only partially covers it.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff, front-loading the verb and resource. However, its brevity sacrifices necessary detail, so it earns a high but not perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with a critical constraint and an ambiguous position parameter, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain how position is interpreted, what permissions are needed, or what happens if the constraint is violated. The presence of an output schema doesn't compensate for these gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description offers no parameter-specific explanation. The 'position' parameter is ambiguous (index? relative? zero-based?), and 'guild_id' and 'reason' are not clarified. The description adds zero semantic value to the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (move) and resource (role), and the constraint about the bot's highest role distinguishes it from other role tools like edit_role or assign_role. It is unambiguous and specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage conditions (role must be below bot's highest role) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. It lacks a direct comparison to sibling tools like discord_edit_role.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose one important behavioral constraint: mentions are restricted unless explicitly allowed. However, it does not describe what happens when a mention is blocked, what authorization is required, or how embeds and replies are treated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action comes first, and the critical mention restriction is delivered immediately afterward. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For such a parameter-rich tool with no annotations, the description is not complete enough. The agent can infer basic sending behavior but cannot fully understand embedding, replying, mention allowlists, or the operational constraints around those features. The output schema helps with return values, but not with usage behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 12 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameter behavior. It only loosely addresses the mention-related parameters and provides no semantics for content, embed_* fields, reply_to_message_id, or guild_id.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Identifies a specific action—send—and a specific resource—message—so an agent clearly knows what the tool does. It is not a tautology because the mention restriction adds scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate it from related sibling tools such as discord_edit_message or discord_delete_message.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the usage: use this tool when you want to send a Discord message. It does not explicitly state when-not to use it or offer alternatives, and it leaves prerequisites like channel access and permissions implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioural disclosure. It does reveal a useful guard: 'requires confirm=true when confirmation is enabled', which helps the agent avoid a failed call. However, it does not describe permission requirements, idempotency (what happens if unbanning an already-unbanned user), or other failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with the core purpose first and the confirm guard second. There is no filler and every phrase earns its place, making the definition concise and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the output schema exists, so the description does not need to be exhaustive. Still, for a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks clarity on guild_id semantics and the exact behavior when confirmation is enabled but confirm is false, leaving the agent with room for assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is expected to compensate for the four parameters. Only the confirm parameter gets meaningful extra context; user_id, reason, and guild_id remain relying on schema titles and default values. This is insufficient for full ambiguity-free invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Unban') and resource ('a user'), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from the sibling tools that ban, kick, or timeout members. It is direct and specific, though it relies somewhat on the tool name for sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage context is implied: this should be used when a user needs to be unbanned, not when banning or kicking. However, the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like discord_ban_member, nor does it state any preconditions such as the user already being banned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it only discloses the hierarchy-respecting behavior. It does not mention required permissions, failure modes, what happens if the member already has the role, or audit-log side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, scannable sentence with no redundant wording. The core action is front-loaded, and the hierarchy constraint earns its place by conveying an important behavioral edge.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutating Discord operation with no annotations, this is too thin. It omits the Manage Roles permission requirement, the role hierarchy failure condition, behavior for already-assigned roles, and guidance for the optional guild_id parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any parameters. The names member_id and role_id are reasonably self-evident, but reason and guild_id are left undocumented, and the description provides no guidance on how they relate to the operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: assigning a role to a member, which is distinct from creating, editing, deleting, or removing roles. The phrase 'respecting hierarchy' adds a meaningful constraint that helps differentiate this from generic role manipulation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for granting a role to a member, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like discord_remove_role or discord_set_role_permissions, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that tokens are never returned, a useful side effect, but it does not mention that this is a state-changing operation, any permission requirements, or potential failure modes. The behavioral transparency is minimal and insufficient for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise—two short sentences with zero fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the note about tokens is placed secondarily. It is well-structured for quick parsing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is incomplete for an agent to call the tool correctly. It does not mention that webhook_id is required (though the schema shows it), nor does it clarify optionality of name/channel, or any constraints. While the output schema exists, the description still lacks context about the operation's scope and potential side effects. For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'name' and 'channel', which loosely map to the name and channel_id parameters, but it does not explain the other parameters (reason, guild_id). It adds marginal value over the schema but fails to fully clarify the semantics of all five parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb ('Edit'), resource ('webhook'), and scope ('name and/or channel'). It also adds a distinguishing note that tokens are never returned, which helps differentiate from get/list/create/delete webhook siblings. This makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for editing a webhook's name or channel, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternative webhook tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., needing the webhook ID, permissions). It is clear enough for a simple case but lacks explicit contextual routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description carries the behavioral disclosure burden because no annotations are provided. It conveys that this is a retrieval operation and explicitly warns that tokens are never returned, which is valuable context an agent would not have inferred from the schema alone.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the token caveat is a concise, meaningful addition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate but leaves gaps: it does not explain the optional guild_id parameter and does not provide routing guidance relative to list_webhooks. The absence of annotations increases the need for fuller context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain webhook_id and guild_id, but it does not. The field names and titles provide minimal hints, and the optional guild_id's purpose is entirely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the purpose: retrieve webhook metadata for a webhook. It adds a useful distinguishing note about tokens never being returned, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with discord_list_webhooks or state that it operates on a single webhook by ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like discord_list_webhooks, discord_create_webhook, or discord_edit_webhook. The intended context must be inferred from the tool name and schema rather than being explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that tokens are never returned, which is valuable. However, it omits context like the 'Manage Webhooks' permission requirement, potential pagination, or that the operation is read-only (likely). The token note is only a partial disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a useful security caveat. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple listing tool with an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It misses the mutual exclusivity of parameters, the required permission, and any note about result size or pagination. However, the output schema covers return values, and the tool is not overly complex, so a 3 is fair.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It says 'for a guild or a specific channel', implying you provide either guild_id or channel_id, but it does not clarify that they are mutually exclusive, that at least one is needed, or the exact behavior if both are provided. The schema allows both to be null, so the description leaves ambiguity, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List webhooks') and the scope ('for a guild or a specific channel'), which is specific and unambiguous. It also adds a security note about tokens, distinguishing it from webhook creation/editing tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like discord_get_webhook, so it's not a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: list webhooks when you need to see all hooks for a guild or channel. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over discord_get_webhook (for a single webhook) or when to avoid it, nor does it mention any prerequisites like permissions. The guidance is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It states 'Read the full guild map' which implies a read-only operation, and the phrase 'before making changes' reinforces non-destructive intent. Still, it doesn't explicitly declare no side effects, permissions, or rate limits, which is a gap for a zero-annotation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's output and followed by usage guidance. No wasted words, though the parameter gap means the description could have used one more sentence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema exists, so return format is covered. However, for a comprehensive analysis tool with overlapping siblings, the description lacks explicit distinctions from discord_server_structure and discord_server_info, and doesn't explain parameter effects (like include_members=false). Adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It makes no mention of guild_id or include_members, relying on self-explanatory names. This is insufficient for an agent to understand defaults, types, or optional behavior without opening the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific function: reading the full guild map including categories, channels, roles, members, bots, permission notes, and a summary. It distinguishes itself from collection-specific tools like discord_list_channels but could more sharply contrast with discord_server_structure and discord_server_info, which likely overlap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly advises 'Prefer this when you need to understand the server structure before making changes,' which gives a clear usage context. However, it doesn't list alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity with similar sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds one important non-obvious detail: 'The webhook token is not returned.' With no annotations present, the description still does not disclose permission requirements, the fact that this is a persistent write operation, or other side effects. The single caveat is helpful but incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and only adds the essential caveat about the missing token. There is no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a fairly simple create operation and the description warns about the most surprising return behavior. However, it lacks usage guidance, permission context, and any parameter elaboration. The output schema helps cover return values, but the agent is still under-informed about when and how to invoke this tool well.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the parameters (name, channel_id, reason, guild_id). Although the parameter names are fairly self-explanatory, the description provides no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it does not compensate for the lack of field descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a webhook') and the resource (a webhook). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like discord_edit_webhook, discord_delete_webhook, and discord_list_webhooks without needing to inspect 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of its siblings. It does not mention that it targets a specific channel, that channel_id is required, or when a user would prefer discord_list_webhooks or discord_edit_webhook instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the core mutation but does not address what happens if the member has no active timeout, whether the action is idempotent, what permissions are required, or any side effects. A mutation tool with this little context should disclose more.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one efficient sentence with no filler. The key action and target are front-loaded, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, single-action tool, this is minimally viable: it identifies the action and target. However, it is not complete enough as the only context source because it lacks behavior nuance, permission context, and explanation of optional parameters. The output schema helps but is secondary to the missing behavioral and parameter context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description only adds semantic meaning for 'member' in relation to the member_id parameter. It does not explain the role of guild_id or reason, nor how they relate to the operation. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove an active timeout from a member.' It clearly identifies the action and target, and it can be distinguished from sibling tools like discord_timeout_member without needing 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The word 'active' implies the tool should be used when a member currently has a timeout, but the description does not explicitly say when to use it versus alternatives. It also does not mention when no active timeout exists or when a different action like discord_remove_role would be appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does communicate the core behavior: it searches by username/nickname prefix and is presumably a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose edge behavior such as whether the search is case-insensitive, whether it returns only matching guild members, or how limit affects results, which would add useful grounding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single focused sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the operation and the matching criterion, so a model scanning many tools can absorb the purpose instantly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The output schema exists, so return-value details are not required, and the tool is relatively simple with only one required parameter. However, the description is thin for a search tool with an optional target guild and a limit: the agent must infer how `guild_id` scopes the search and what happens when it is null. It is sufficient but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter clarity. It explains that `query` is matched against username/nickname prefix, but says nothing about `limit` or `guild_id`, even though those heavily affect what the tool returns and whether it searches a specific server.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific operation ('search members') and a precise matching criterion ('username/nickname prefix'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like discord_list_members, discord_get_member, and discord_get_member_permissions. An agent can identify what this tool does 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 Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not state when to prefer this tool over discord_list_members or discord_get_member, nor does it mention any alternatives or exclusions. The usage context is only implicit from the word 'search,' with no guidance about when the prefix query is the right approach.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal two critical operational constraints (max 100 messages, age cutoff), but the actual destructive behavior of deletion is mainly implied by the name. It does not explain permission requirements, irreversibility, or what the confirm parameter does.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, zero filler, with the high-value limits placed at the end of a clearly structured phrase. It is concise while preserving the most important rules.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For deconstructive tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, the description leaves too much undefined: an agent cannot know whether it must set confirm to true to actually execute the deleet, or what exactly channel_id/guild_id must target. The output schema exists, which slightly reduces the need to describe return values, but the risky confirm semantics must be disclosed for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate almost entirely for parameter meaning. It adds a max message count and age limit, but it does not clarify key inputs like confirm, guild_id, reason, or channel_id beyond what their param names already imply. The confirm flag in particular is unexplained despite being central to a destructive operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a very specific verb and resource: bulk-delete messages by ID. It adds concrete limits (max 100, <14 days old), and the phrase 'by ID' clearly separates it from single-message or purge-style tools in the sibling list.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes the intended use case evident: deleting a known set of message IDs. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with discord_delete_message or discord_purge_messages, so an agent must infer when this tool should be preferred rather than being told directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a clear behavioral nuance: passing null or an empty string clears the nickname. However, because no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure; it does not mention permission requirements, whether the change is reversible, or any audit/reason implications. It is more informative than a bare mutation statement but still leaves important behavior undocumented.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise, front-loaded sentences. Every word adds value, and the most important operational nuance ('null/empty to clear') is included without extra fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, this four-parameter mutation tool lacks a clear explanation of the optional 'guild_id' and 'reason' parameters, as well as any permission or side-effect context. Given zero annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to reliably invoke the tool in the correct server context or know the constraints of nickname changes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to compensate. It explains the meaning of 'nickname' and the clearing behavior, but it does not explain the purpose or role of 'guild_id', 'reason', or how 'member_id' relates to a specific Discord server. This leaves a substantial gap for a 4-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Change a member's nickname.' It also clarifies the clear behavior ('Pass null/empty to clear'), making the operation unambiguous. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools, which target roles, channels, messages, and other resources rather than nicknames.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for changing or clearing a member nickname and provides the important null/empty usage note. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any conditions such as required permissions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the conditional confirmation requirement ('Requires confirm=true when confirmation is enabled'), which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention the irreversible nature of deletion, permission prerequisites, or what occurs if confirm is omitted when required. It adds only partial behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the conditional confirm requirement is a short, separate second sentence. The structure is direct and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the core action and one condition but ignores reason and guild_id entirely. Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be described), the missing parameter semantics and lack of behavioral detail (e.g., irreversible deletion) leave the tool underspecified for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly covers invite_code ('by code') and confirm (the requirement), but it does not explain reason or guild_id at all. Neither the schema nor the description clarifies their purpose, leaving two parameters semantically undefined for an agent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete an invite') and the identifying attribute ('by code'). It distinguishes this delete tool from sibling delete tools like discord_delete_channel or discord_delete_role by specifying the resource (invite).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear context for when to use this tool (when deleting an invite) but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions. The confirm requirement is a parameter usage note, not a tool-selection guideline. There is no explicit when-not or comparison to other delete tools, but the context is straightforward.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Get details' clearly conveys a read-only operation with no destructive side effects. It doesn't explicitly state permissions, errors, or guild_id behavior, but for a simple retrieval operation the non-mutating behavior is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no filler. Every word is meaningful, and it is appropriately concise for a straightforward get-by-ID tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return value details are covered elsewhere. However, the description is minimal for a 2-parameter tool with no schema descriptions; it doesn't clarify why guild_id is optional or when it should be provided, leaving a mild gap for correct invocation in ambiguous guild scenarios.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds almost no parameter-level meaning beyond the object being a 'guild role.' It does not explain the relationship or necessity of role_id and guild_id, or how guild_id should be used, leaving the agent to infer parameter semantics from parameter names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the verb ('Get') and the resource ('details for a guild role') clearly, so an agent understands the operation is a read of one role. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like discord_list_roles (all roles) and discord_get_role_permissions (permissions), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The usage scenario is implied by 'Get' — use it when you need a specific role's details — but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over discord_list_roles or discord_get_role_permissions. The description offers no exclusions or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the destructive act of deletion and the confirm flag requirement, but it does not explicitly state irreversibility, permission requirements, or why confirmation may be needed. The 'confirmation enabled' condition is also ambiguous.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed with the condition for confirmation. There is no unnecessary wording or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple delete operation, and the output schema helps clarify return expectations. Still, without annotations and with most parameters unexplored, the description is only minimally adequate. It mentions the confirm condition but omits context about guild_id usage and the meaning of reason.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description only explains the confirm parameter. The webhook_id, guild_id, and reason parameters are left entirely to their titles, so the description does not compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Delete a webhook' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling webhook tools like create, edit, get, and list because the action is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a conditional usage requirement: 'Requires confirm=true when confirmation is enabled.' However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling tools or mention any stop conditions or alternatives, though the operation is largely self-evident from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only operation and the key 'active' filter, but it does not disclose behavior around the optional guild_id, invite expiration semantics, or error conditions. This is a minimum viable disclosure, not a full one.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no fluff. The action and subject are front-loaded, and every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and has an output schema, but the description still lacks useful context around the optional guild_id parameter and the scope of one invocation. It is adequate for a minimal list operation, but it leaves a few practical invocation details to inference.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description is expected to compensate. It only says 'for a guild', which simply mirrors the property name 'guild_id'. It does not explain the null default, acceptable ID format, or what happens when the parameter is omitted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List active invites for a guild' uses a specific verb, a clear resource, and a scoping context. It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling invite creation/deletion tools and from listing channels, roles, or members.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the verb 'List', but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor provide any exclusion or prerequisite. An agent can infer the intent from the name, but there is no direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden for behaviors. It correctly predcribes listing rather than mutating and Stesor implies a read-only action. But it does not disclose permission requirements or read-only status explicitly; nonetheless the stated behavior is accurate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary operation and scope. There is no redundant wording or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward listing operation, the tool name and description plus output schema may be enough to call the main channel. The lack of clarity about the optional guild_id and the total absence of usage boundaries keep it from being fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description explains only the channel context, which maps to channel_id. It says nothing about the optional guild_id parameter, and the schema offers no property descriptions, so the purpose of that parameter remains unexplained. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description needed to compensate and did not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb (list), a specific resource (pinned messages), and a clear scope (in a channel). It is easily differentiated from sibling tools like discord_get_recent_messages or discord_pin_message.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool: whenever the agent needs pin_part messages from a channel. There is no explicit statement about when not to use it or which alternative to prefer, but the wording provides enough implied context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It exposes one meaningful behavior: it respects Discord's role hierarchy. However, it does not mention required permissions, how failures are surfaced, or what happens if the member already lacks the role.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core operation and includes the key hierarchy caveat in second place, making it easy for an agent to scan.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is borderline adequate but incomplete. It covers the main operation and one constraint, but omits contextual details like the required permissions, conflict with hierarchy, and expected behavior on invalid input. The presence of an output schema reduces some burden, but the description still leaves too much implied.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It implies that role_id and member_id are important, but it says nothing about the optional reason parameter, guild_id behavior, or how the guild is determined. The names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no real parameter-level guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Remove') with a clear resource and target ('a role from a member'), making the operation unambiguous. It also differentiates from siblings like discord_delete_role and discord_assign_role without needing to open 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 Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the obvious use case—when a member should stop having a particular role—but does not explicitly contrast it with discord_assign_role or mention any prerequisites, such as hierarchy position or permissions. The hierarchy phrase is a hint at constraints, not an explicit routing or exclusion rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses that the tool returns only a subset of server data and that it is lighter-weight, which is useful behavioral context. It does not mention auth requirements, error behavior, or handling of an absent guild_id, leaving some transparency gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary behavior, then adds a short, relevant comparison to a sibling tool. There is no filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description conveys scope and lightweight intent well. The main remaining gap is the lack of guidance about the guild_id parameter's optional/null semantics, but the tool's overall calling context is mostly clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the guild_id parameter or what happens when it is omitted/defaulted to null. The parameter name is self-explanatory to some extent, but the description adds no semantics beyond the schema's bare type/default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the exact resources returned ('category/channel tree and roles'). It also contrasts itself with a sibling tool ('lighter than discord_analyze_server'), making its scope easy to distinguish.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'lighter than discord_analyze_server' indicates when this tool should be chosen over the heavier analysis tool. However, it does not explicitly address alternatives like discord_list_channels or discord_list_roles, so the guidance is clear for one sibling but not fully comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/669px/Dc-MCP'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server