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

Get channel access

get_channel_access
Read-only

Shows who can view and use a Discord channel, including @everyone, roles, member overrides, and the owner; optionally checks each member for exact access.

Instructions

Who can see and use a channel: @everyone, each role that can see it (with how many members hold it, whether they can post or join, and any powers there), members with their own overwrite, and the owner. With include_members, also checks every member one by one, which is exact where roles combine. Read only.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_channel_access"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
guildNoGuild (server) name or ID. Omit to use the default guild.
channelYesChannel name or ID.
include_membersNoCheck each member and list who can see it (up to 100 names). Needs the Server Members intent.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.4.2

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true it discloses that the per-member check walks every member one by one and is the only exact method when role combinations matter, which signals a cost/accuracy tradeoff the agent should weigh. It also flags the Server Members intent dependency. The closing "Read only" merely restates the annotation and earns nothing.

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, output composition front-loaded, parameter caveat second, no filler. Even the dense comma-separated role clause is doing real enumerative work rather than padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the four categories of principal returned. It leaves unstated how the result is shaped (nested per-role vs flat) and whether the member scan is paginated, minor gaps for a read tool with fully described parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, so guild, channel, and include_members are already documented, including the 100-name cap and the intent requirement. The description adds only the semantic nuance that include_members resolves role-combination ambiguity; it says nothing extra about guild defaults or channel resolution.

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 opening clause "Who can see and use a channel" states the exact question the tool answers, and the enumeration (@everyone, roles with member counts and post/join capability, member overwrites, owner) makes the resource scope concrete. It never names a sibling such as get_channel_permissions or get_member_access, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

The only conditional guidance is tied to a parameter: "With include_members... which is exact where roles combine," which tells the agent when the expensive path is worth it. There is no tool-level when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no alternative tool named for simpler permission checks.

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