Get a structured overview of a Discord server: categories, channels with IDs and topics, and members. Use it to explore server layout and see who is present.
A map of a server: categories, channels with their ids and topics, and members
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guild_id | No | Server id; the configured default server if omitted | |
| include_members | No | Include the member list? |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully states what the returned map contains, and 'map' implies a read-only retrieval, but it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, response shape, or caveats such as result size or member detail depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core idea ('A map of a server') and then lists the included elements efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives a high-level picture of the return contents. However, it omits output structure, usage guidance, and any performance or size caveats, leaving it minimally sufficient rather than fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond clarifying the overall result content.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description identifies the resource ('a server') and the returned content ('categories, channels with their ids and topics, and members'). It is clear about what the tool provides, but it is phrased as a noun phrase rather than an explicit action verb, and it does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like guild_channels or find_member.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for getting a structural overview of a server, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. The intended use is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.