Update a Discord role by ID, changing its name, color, hoist, mentionable setting, or permissions. Passing permissions replaces all existing permissions.
Edit a role. Passing permissions replaces the role's whole permission set.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| color | No | Hex like #ff8800 | |
| hoist | No | ||
| role_id | Yes | Role ID | |
| 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?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, which understates the risk. The description usefully discloses the non-obvious replace semantics of the permissions field, which the annotations do not capture. It still omits any note on required bot permissions or reversibility.
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 short sentences, no filler, and the highest-value warning about permissions replacement is placed right after the purpose statement so it is read before the agent fills in arguments.
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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and partial schema coverage, the core pitfall is covered but permission requirements, partial-update behavior for name/color/hoist, and error cases are not. Adequate but with visible 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?
Schema coverage is 57%, with name/hoist/mentionable having no descriptions. The description compensates on the most consequential parameter by explaining that permissions replaces the full set rather than merging, but leaves the remaining parameters' semantics to the schema.
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 ('Edit a role'), which is clearly distinct from non-role tools. It does not, however, differentiate from the close siblings discord_create_role and discord_delete_role, so an agent gets no help choosing among role-mutation operations.
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 on when to use this versus discord_create_role, discord_delete_role, or discord_member_role, and no prerequisites (e.g. needing the MANAGE_ROLES permission) are mentioned. The only implicit signal is that the role must already exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.