Search Discord server members by name or nickname prefix to locate users matching a partial name. Set a result limit; Server Members Intent may be required.
Rechercher les membres par préfixe de nom/surnom. Peut nécessiter SERVER MEMBERS INTENT dans le portail Discord.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limite | No | ||
| recherche | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful operational prerequisite: the SERVER MEMBERS INTENT must be enabled in the Discord portal. It does not say what happens when that intent is missing (empty results vs. error), nor that the call is a non-mutating read with pagination or a default cap.
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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the prerequisite. Nothing is wasted, though the prerequisite could have been placed after a brief note on what results look like.
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 two-parameter, non-mutating lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers the action, the matching rule, and the key Discord permission prerequisite. The missing piece is any mention of 'limite' or result behavior, which keeps it from being fully complete.
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 compensate; it explains that 'recherche' is matched by prefix of name or nickname, which is real added meaning over a bare string field. However, the 'limite' parameter (integer, default 20) is never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undefined.
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 and resource ('Rechercher les membres') plus the matching mechanism ('par préfixe de nom/surnom'), which distinguishes it from the singular sibling 'membre'. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, but the prefix semantics make the scope unambiguous.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no reference to alternatives such as 'membre' for a single known member. Prefix matching implicitly signals it is a lookup rather than a full roster dump, but that is inference rather than stated guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.