Encodes named Discord permissions into a decimal bitfield or decodes a bitfield, and lists all permission names when no arguments are provided for role and channel overwrite setup.
Encode named Discord permissions into a decimal bitfield or decode a bitfield. With no arguments lists all current permission names. Use for roles and channel overwrites.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| names | No | ||
| bitfield | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose that the tool is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds the useful no-argument listing behavior, but it does not state what happens when both names and bitfield are provided, nor how invalid permission names or malformed bitfields are handled.
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 compact sentences front-load the encode/decode capability and then state the no-argument listing behavior. Every sentence adds useful information without repetition or filler.
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 simple two-parameter codec with rich safety annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main operating modes. However, it leaves an important ambiguity unresolved: both parameters are optional and the description does not specify behavior when both are supplied, nor does it explicitly describe the decoded return shape.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It successfully identifies the two conceptual inputs (named permissions and a decimal bitfield) and the no-argument mode, but it does not explain mutual exclusivity, precedence, or the expected format of permission names.
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 states a specific dual operation: encode named Discord permissions into a decimal bitfield or decode a bitfield. It also defines the no-argument listing behavior, making the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishable from adjacent Discord resources such as roles and channels.
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?
It gives clear usage context: "Use for roles and channel overwrites," which tells the agent where permission bitfields are applicable. It does not name an alternative or explicitly exclude scenarios, but no sibling tool appears to duplicate this permission-codec role.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.