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 member permissions

get_member_permissions
Read-only

Resolve a Discord member's effective permissions server-wide or in a specific channel by applying role and overwrite rules, returning plain-language results.

Instructions

The effective permissions a member has, server-wide or in a specific channel once role and overwrite resolution is applied, in plain language. Uses Discord's own permission check when Discord gives one, which includes its implicit rules; source says which.

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": {
      "member": "<member>"
    },
    "name": "get_member_permissions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
guildNoGuild (server) name or ID. Omit to use the default guild.
memberYesMember name or user ID.
channelNoResolve permissions in this channel instead of server-wide.

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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it discloses that Discord's own permission check is used when available, that this includes implicit rules, and that a 'source' marker indicates which path was taken. That is real method transparency beyond the annotation. It stops short of describing the response shape or how unresolved members/roles 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

A single dense sentence that front-loads the result ('effective permissions') and then qualifies scope and method. Nothing is padding, though the trailing clause 'source says which' reads slightly compressed and would benefit from one clarifying phrase.

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 read-only, no-output-schema tool with three fully described parameters, the description covers purpose and resolution method adequately. It does not indicate what the 'plain language' output looks like structurally or how a permission set is enumerated, leaving an agent to discover the return shape on first call.

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 three parameters are already documented, including the guild default and the channel-vs-server-wide switch. The description restates the channel scope but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case guidance (e.g., unknown member, DM guilds) beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific resource and outcome: effective permissions for a member, with the scope (server-wide or channel) and the resolution semantics (role and overwrite resolution). An agent can tell this is the 'what can this member actually do' tool. It never names a sibling such as get_channel_permissions or explain_permissions, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 by the channel parameter ('server-wide or in a specific channel'), which does suggest when to omit or supply it. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over sibling permission tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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