Create a new Discord role in a server with a specified name, color, and permissions. Requires Manage Roles; the bot can only grant permissions it holds.
Create a role. Needs Manage Roles; the bot can only grant permissions it has itself.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| color | No | Hex like #ff8800 | |
| hoist | No | Show members separately in the list | |
| guild_id | Yes | Server (guild) ID | |
| mentionable | No | ||
| permissions | No | Permission names |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (which flag a non-readOnly, non-destructive write), the description discloses two non-obvious constraints: the required Manage Roles permission and that the bot can only grant permissions it holds itself. The latter especially prevents a class of failed/incorrect invocations and is not derivable from the schema.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the operative constraints. Every clause earns its place with no padding.
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 mutation tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile, and with no output schema to explain, the description covers the critical auth/privilege constraints well. The only shortfall is that it doesn't clarify the semantics of the permissions parameter it references.
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 moderate (67%) with color, hoist, and guild_id described inline, while name, mentionable, and permissions lack descriptions. The description adds no parameter meaning, so it neither compensates for the gap nor duplicates the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb ('Create') plus resource ('role'), so an agent immediately knows the action. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like discord_edit_role or discord_delete_role, but the verb makes the intent unambiguous.
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?
It gives a prerequisite ('Needs Manage Roles'), which tells the agent when the call can succeed, but offers no guidance on choosing this over sibling role tools or any exclusions. Usage is implied via the permission requirement rather than explicit selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.