MCP Discord Bot Server

discord_send_message

Send a message to a Discord channel by providing the channel ID and content, with an optional reply-to message ID for threaded responses.

Instructions

Send a message to a Discord channel.

Args:
    channel_id: The ID of the channel to send the message to.
    content: The text content of the message.
    reply_to: Optional ID of a message to reply to.

Returns:
    JSON object with the sent message details.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`content`	Yes	The text content of the message to send. Required.
`reply_to`	No	The ID of a message to reply to. Optional.
`channel_id`	Yes	The ID of the Discord channel to send the message to. Required.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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 does not state that this is a mutating write operation, nor does it disclose permission requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. Only the return shape is mentioned, which is largely covered by the output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, front-loaded with the core action, and free of filler. The Args/Returns structure is slightly formulaic but efficient.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a write tool with no annotations, the description should still cover permissions or failure modes, which it omits, leaving it only minimally adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description merely restates them without adding format, constraints, or example values, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (Send) and resource (message to a Discord channel), which is clear on its own. However, it does not differentiate from the closely related sibling discord_send_dm, leaving the agent to infer the channel-vs-DM distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer discord_send_dm or discord_create_dm. The presence of those siblings makes this omission notable, and the agent gets no routing help.

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

Deploy Server