Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Discord MCP - Discord server management MCP for AI agents

Discord MCP - Discord server management MCP for AI agents

by OrygnsCode
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Add reactions

add_reactions

Adds one or more emoji reactions to a Discord message in a single call, accepting unicode emoji or custom emoji by name.

Instructions

Add one or more reactions to a message in a single call. Takes unicode emoji directly or custom emoji by name.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "channel": "<channel>",
      "message_id": "<message_id>",
      "emojis": "<emojis>"
    },
    "name": "add_reactions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
guildNoGuild (server) name or ID. Omit to use the default guild.
emojisYesEmoji to add, like a pasted emoji or a custom emoji name.
channelYesChannel name or ID.
message_idYesMessage ID, or the message's link.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.4.2
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • addedInput schema / properties / message_id / description
      Added value: +"Message ID, or the message's link."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.3.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  3. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only but non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that emoji may be unicode or custom-by-name, but says nothing about rate limits, what happens with duplicate reactions, permission requirements, or error behavior when an emoji is unrecognized.

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?

Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema's emojis description, which keeps it just below a 5.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple 4-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, the description covers what the tool does and how to express emoji. It lacks any statement about the return value (no output schema exists) or partial-failure behavior when multiple emojis are supplied, which an agent would benefit from knowing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (guild, channel, message_id, emojis) are documented in the schema itself. The description's note about unicode emoji vs. custom emoji names largely restates what the emojis schema field already says, so it adds little beyond baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Add one or more reactions to a message') and clarifies batching ('in a single call'). It implicitly separates itself from clear_reactions and get_reactions by naming the add operation, but it never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: 'in a single call' hints that the tool should be preferred over repeated single-emoji calls, and the name pairing with clear_reactions/get_reactions hints at the add-vs-remove-vs-list split. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance (e.g. needing reaction permission in the channel).

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools