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 invite

get_invite
Read-only

Inspect a Discord invite code to see where it leads, how often it has been used, roles it grants, and whether access is limited to specific people.

Instructions

Inspect an invite code: where it leads, how used it is, the roles it gives, and whether it is limited to particular people.

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": {
      "code": "<code>"
    },
    "name": "get_invite"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesThe invite code, with or without discord.gg/.

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?

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, side-effect-free read, so the description is not obligated to restate that. What it adds is the substance of the read: which attributes come back (destination, usage, roles, people restrictions), which is valuable given there is no output schema. Minor gap: it says nothing about behavior for expired/unknown codes or whether resolution requires guild membership.

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?

One front-loaded sentence, colon-led, with zero filler. The most decision-relevant information (what it does) arrives first and the enumerated facets follow immediately. Nothing here could be cut without losing content.

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 one-parameter read with full schema coverage and a readOnlyHint, the description supplies everything an agent needs to decide to call it and what it will learn. The only real omission is failure behavior for invalid or expired codes, which is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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% and the single param already documents that the code may be given 'with or without discord.gg/', which is the key formatting ambiguity. The description adds no meaning beyond that — it merely names the concept 'invite code'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the full burden.

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?

Specific verb ('Inspect') plus resource ('an invite code'), then enumerates exactly what facets it reveals: destination, usage count, granted roles, and targeting restrictions. That is far clearer than a tautology. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly contrast itself with create_invite/delete_invite, though 'inspect' implicitly distinguishes read from write.

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 verb 'inspect' implies a read-only lookup when you already hold a code, and the sibling names create_invite/delete_invite make the alternative mutations obvious by contrast. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over alternatives, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether the bot must be in the target guild) are given. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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