Discord MCP Server

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 states the action ('Remove' or 'cancel') but doesn't disclose critical traits such as whether this is a destructive operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, error handling, or usage context, which are essential for an agent to invoke it correctly and safely. The high schema coverage 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.

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'userId' parameter clearly documented as 'User ID to remove as friend'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Remove' or 'cancel') and the resource ('a friend' or 'a friend request'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'discord_get_friends' (which lists friends) or 'discord_add_friend' (which adds friends), though the verb 'remove' inherently contrasts with 'add'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as clarifying if it applies to existing friends or pending requests, or mentioning prerequisites like having the user as a friend first. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage context implied at best.

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