Discord MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It implies a destructive operation ('clean up') but doesn't specify what cleanup entails (e.g., deletion, archiving, permissions changes), whether it's reversible, or any side effects. More context about the operation's nature would be needed for adequate transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information.

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?

Given the tool's apparent simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It doesn't clarify the cleanup behavior or output expectations, which could be important for a destructive operation. However, the high schema coverage and conciseness partially offset these limitations.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% with one parameter ('path') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, constraints), so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 clearly states the action ('clean up') and the target ('previously downloaded Discord attachment file'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'discord_delete_message' or 'discord_remove_reaction' that might also involve cleanup operations, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides minimal guidance by specifying 'previously downloaded' context, but doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., system file deletion tools) or when not to use it (e.g., for non-downloaded files). No explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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