Read one Discord message by channel or thread ID and message ID to retrieve its contents for context, review, or moderation.
Read one message by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel_id | Yes | Channel ID (a thread ID also works) | |
| message_id | Yes | Message ID |
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 the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the name - no return shape, no error behavior (e.g., missing message), no cross-channel caveat even though 'channel_id' is required.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but it is arguably too sparse for a tool that requires a channel context the description never mentions. Efficient, if minimal.
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?
A simple read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, so the description is minimally adequate. It omits any note about the required channel context or what the returned message contains.
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%, including the useful note that a thread ID works for channel_id, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing beyond it, making the baseline 3 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 (read) and resource (one message), which distinguishes it from list-style siblings like discord_read_channel and discord_list_pins. However it offers no explicit sibling differentiation or scope detail beyond the schema fields.
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 mention of when to prefer discord_read_channel/discord_list_pins over this tool, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.