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

Explain permissions

explain_permissions
Read-only

Checks whether a bot or member has a permission server-wide or in a channel, then explains the result through roles and overwrites.

Instructions

Answer whether an actor (the bot, or a member) has a given permission, server-wide or in a channel, and explain the result through the role and overwrite chain. The answer is Discord's own permission check when Discord gives one, so it includes the implicit rules (a missing View Channel cancels what depends on it).

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": {
      "actor": "<actor>",
      "permission": "<permission>"
    },
    "name": "explain_permissions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actorYesA member name or ID, or "bot".
guildNoGuild (server) name or ID. Omit to use the default guild.
channelNoCheck in this channel instead of server-wide.
permissionYesPermission name, like manage_messages.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field 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"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.3.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  3. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral context by stating the answer mirrors Discord's own check and includes implicit cascade rules (a missing View Channel cancels dependents). It stops short of describing the response shape or how conflicts are reported.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with no filler: the operation and its scoping options come first, then the fidelity caveat about Discord's own evaluation. Every clause carries information an agent could act on.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a four-parameter, read-only, non-destructive tool with a fully described schema, the description covers what the answer means and why it may differ from a naive computation. The only gap is what the returned explanation looks like, which matters somewhat since there is no output schema.

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 each of the four parameters is already documented, including the 'bot' actor value and the channel-vs-server-wide distinction. The description only echoes that scoping in prose, adding no syntax, naming conventions, or defaults beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb ('answer whether... has a given permission') plus a specific added value ('explain the result through the role and overwrite chain'), which distinguishes it from a plain boolean permission read. It does not name the apparent siblings (get_member_permissions, get_channel_permissions), so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

It establishes the two scoping modes (server-wide vs. in a channel) and implies you use this when you want an explanation rather than a raw value. It never says when to prefer a sibling permission tool, and gives no preconditions (e.g., bot must be in the guild, channel must be visible).

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