Retrieve a Discord channel or thread by ID, including its permission overwrites translated to readable permission names, to inspect settings.
Get a channel or thread, including its permission overwrites (translated to permission names).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact – that permission overwrites are resolved to human-readable permission names – but says nothing about error cases (invalid/unknown channel) or what a thread lookup returns versus a channel.
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?
One tightly worded sentence with the resource and the notable return detail front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is perhaps slightly terse given the ambiguity with discord_read_channel, but structurally efficient.
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 read-only single-parameter lookup with safety annotations, the description covers what is fetched and one notable return field. No output schema exists and none is strictly required, though the overlap with discord_read_channel remains an unresolved gap.
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% and the lone channel_id parameter is fully documented there, including the note that a thread ID works. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb ('Get') and resource ('channel or thread'), plus a distinctive return detail ('permission overwrites translated to permission names') that separates it from generic channel reads. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling discord_read_channel, which appears to overlap, leaving the agent to guess which to call.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. required bot permissions), and no mention of the apparently overlapping discord_read_channel sibling. The agent must infer the choice entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.