Omnicord - Discord server management MCP for AI agents

Execute build plan

execute_build_plan

Instructions

Execute a staged plan by plan_id, or pass a blueprint directly. Either way the blueprint is re-validated against the live server at this moment, then built in dependency order: roles, then categories, then channels, with private_to and read_only compiled into permission overwrites at creation. Strictly additive: existing entities are reused, nothing is deleted or modified. If a step fails, the run stops and the report says exactly what was created, what failed, and what was never attempted. Re-running after a fix resumes naturally because finished work is reused.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`guild`	No	Guild (server) name or ID. Omit to use the default guild.
`plan_id`	No	A plan staged by plan_server_build.
`blueprint`	No	Build this blueprint directly, skipping the staging step.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.4.0Sep 14, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / blueprint / properties / channels / maxItems
```
Previous value: -100New value: +500
```
- addedInput schema / properties / blueprint / properties / roles / description
```
Added value: +"Highest role first, the way the server settings list them. A build creates them in this order and that order is the hierarchy."
```
- changedInput schema / properties / blueprint / properties / roles / maxItems
```
Previous value: -50New value: +250
```

Changed9 schema fields changedv1.3.0Aug 12, 2026

removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
removedInput schema / properties / blueprint / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
removedInput schema / properties / blueprint / properties / categories / items / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
removedInput schema / properties / blueprint / properties / categories / items / properties / channels / items / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

removedInput schema / properties / blueprint / properties / channels / items / $ref

Removed value: -"#/properties/blueprint/properties/categories/items/properties/channels/items"

addedInput schema / properties / blueprint / properties / channels / items / properties

Added value: +{
+  "name": {
+    "maxLength": 100,
+    "minLength": 1,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "nsfw": {
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  "posting_roles": {
+    "description": "With read_only: role names that may still post.",
+    "items": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  "private_to": {
+    "description": "Role names that can see this channel. Everyone else is denied view.",
+    "items": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  "read_only": {
+    "description": "Deny sending for everyone; for rules and announcements.",
+    "type": "boolean"
+  },
+  "slowmode_seconds": {
+    "maximum": 21600,
+    "minimum": 0,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  "topic": {
+    "maxLength": 1024,
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": {
+    "description": "Default text.",
+    "enum": [
+      "text",
+      "voice",
+      "forum",
+      "stage",
+      "announcement"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}

addedInput schema / properties / blueprint / properties / channels / items / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "name"
+]
```
addedInput schema / properties / blueprint / properties / channels / items / type
```
Added value: +"object"
```
removedInput schema / properties / blueprint / properties / roles / items / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

First observedv1.0.2Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: live re-validation at execution time, deterministic build order (roles/categories/channels), permission-overwrite compilation, strictly additive reuse semantics, stop-on-failure behavior, and the exact contents of the failure report. This is unusually rich disclosure for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Five dense sentences, front-loaded with the two input modes before the behavioral guarantees. Every sentence carries information, though the run could be trimmed slightly without loss (the re-validation point is restated implicitly by the additivity/resume content).

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a complex tool with deeply nested object params and no output schema, the description covers the execution model, ordering, permissions compilation, additivity, failure reporting, and resumability — everything an agent needs to call it and interpret the outcome. Nothing material is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by framing plan_id and blueprint as alternative entry points ('or pass a blueprint directly') and clarifying that either path is re-validated at execution. It does not add per-field detail, but the either/or semantics are valuable.

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 (execute) and resource (staged plan / blueprint) and immediately distinguishes the two input paths. It is clearly differentiable from siblings like plan_server_build (staging) and save_blueprint (persistence) 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly says it runs a plan staged by plan_server_build or accepts a blueprint directly, and explains when re-running is appropriate ('resumes naturally because finished work is reused'). It lacks an explicit when-not statement or a direct pointer to plan_server_build as the prerequisite step, but usage context is clear.

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

Deploy Server

Execute build plan

Instructions

Input Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Other Tools