Discord MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets information' but doesn't specify what kind of information (e.g., name, type, permissions), whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond basic retrieval.

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?

The description is a single, straightforward sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core action, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., channel details like name or type), which is crucial for a retrieval tool. While the schema covers the input well, the overall context for understanding the tool's full behavior is insufficient.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'channelId' clearly documented as 'The Discord channel ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'information about a Discord channel', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'discord_get_message' or 'discord_get_dm_channels', which also retrieve information about Discord entities, so it misses the opportunity to clarify its specific scope.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for retrieving channel metadata versus message content (which might be handled by 'discord_get_message'), or when to use it over 'discord_get_dm_channels' for direct messages. There's no mention of prerequisites or context for usage.

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