Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Capes

Capes

by Dipeshpal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

discord_list_webhooks

Read-only

List webhooks for a Discord channel or server without showing tokens. Requires Manage Webhooks permission.

Instructions

List webhooks of a channel or of a whole server. Tokens are never shown. Needs Manage Webhooks.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "discord_list_webhooks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
guild_idNoServer (guild) ID
channel_idNoChannel ID (a thread ID also works)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts that structured data does not cover: tokens are never returned (important output-privacy trait) and the call requires the Manage Webhooks permission. It stops short of describing result contents or ordering.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: purpose first, then the security behavior, then the permission requirement. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter read tool the description covers purpose, privacy behavior, and permissions, but with no output schema and no return-format hint, an agent still doesn't know what fields a listed webhook contains. Adequate but leaves a modest gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so guild_id and channel_id are already fully documented in the schema. The description only alludes to the channel/server dual scope without naming which parameter drives it, so it adds little beyond the schema baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (webhooks) with the scoping modes it supports (channel or whole server). An agent can immediately distinguish it from the create/send/delete webhook siblings 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'of a channel or of a whole server' implies the two usage modes and loosely maps them to the two parameters, but it never explicitly states when to pick channel scope vs guild scope. No alternatives or exclusions are given, so guidance remains implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools