Verifies the Discord bot's server-level connection and permissions to diagnose access problems; does not check channel-specific overrides or invisible channels.
Vérifier la connexion et les permissions du bot au niveau du serveur. Les dérogations propres aux salons et les salons invisibles ne sont pas vérifiés.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only a coverage limitation — the check is server-scoped and misses channel overrides for invisible channels — but says nothing about permissions required to run it, how results are reported, or whether the bot's token must be valid.
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 short sentences, with the core purpose stated first and the scoping caveat immediately after. No filler and nothing that could be cut without losing information.
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?
This is simple to call, but it is a diagnostic that an agent would likely use for troubleshooting, and no output schema exists to explain what a result looks like. The description never says what the check returns or how to interpret a failure, which is the main gap remaining.
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 tool takes no parameters, so there are no argument semantics to explain and the schema achieves 100% coverage by default. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.
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 gives a specific verb/resource pair: checking the bot's connection and permissions at server level. That is meaningfully distinct from sibling tools such as 'calculer_permissions' or 'etat_serveur', although it never states explicitly how it differs from those siblings.
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 names one concrete exclusion (channel-level overrides and invisible channels are not verified), which usefully implies when the tool is incomplete. However, it gives no positive guidance about when to choose this tool over 'etat_serveur' or 'calculer_permissions', or what to do after the check fails.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.