Retrieve and list all Discord channels within a specified server, filtering by channel type as needed.
Liste tous les canaux
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_channels"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guildId | No | ID du serveur | |
| type | No | Type de canal |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, output format, or whether it's read-only/destructive. For a tool with parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient.
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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and clear, though slightly under-specified. It earns a high score for brevity and directness.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and a tool with parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output, error handling, or how parameters affect the listing. For a tool in a rich sibling set, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying listing of channels, which aligns with the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 'Liste tous les canaux' clearly states the action (list) and resource (channels), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling 'list_channels'. It doesn't specify whether it lists all channels globally or within a specific context, making it less precise than ideal.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_channels' or other channel-related tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with siblings, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.