Create a webhook in a Discord channel for posting messages via HTTP. Returns the webhook ID; requires Manage Webhooks permission.
Create a webhook in a channel. Returns its ID only; use discord_send_webhook_message to post through it. Needs Manage Webhooks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| channel_id | Yes | Channel ID (a thread ID also works) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation, but the description adds real value beyond them: the return shape ('Returns its ID only'), the required Manage Webhooks permission, and the recommended next tool. It doesn't mention rate limits or whether the returned token is exposed, which would push it higher.
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?
Three compact clauses, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the follow-up tool and permission requirement ordered by importance. Every sentence carries distinct 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?
For a two-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the return value, the permission prerequisite, and the natural next step. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.
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 50%: channel_id carries a description including the thread-ID allowance, while name is undocumented. The phrase 'in a channel' confirms channel_id's role as the target, but the description adds no syntax or constraint detail (e.g., the 80-character name limit) beyond the schema. The undescribed parameter is trivially inferable from the verb, so this lands at baseline rather than below.
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 and resource ('Create a webhook in a channel') and immediately distinguishes the tool's role from its closest sibling by naming discord_send_webhook_message as the posting path. An agent can tell it apart from discord_list_webhooks and discord_delete_webhook without opening any schema.
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?
Explicitly routes the follow-up action ('use discord_send_webhook_message to post through it') and states the permission prerequisite ('Needs Manage Webhooks'). It stops short of a full when/when-not clause (e.g., when to prefer an incoming webhook over a bot message), so it's clear context rather than complete routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.