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 reactions

get_reactions
Read-only

Retrieve the users who reacted to a Discord message with a specific emoji. Identify reaction participants by channel, message ID, and emoji, with an optional user limit.

Instructions

Who reacted to a message with a given emoji.

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>",
      "emoji": "<emoji>"
    },
    "name": "get_reactions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emojiYes
guildNoGuild (server) name or ID. Omit to use the default guild.
limitNoMax users. Default 25.
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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally, and the description correctly implies a read of reacting users rather than a mutation. It adds nothing on permissions, ordering of returned users, or behavior when no one has reacted, and with no output schema the only behavioral hint is the phrase "who reacted".

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 short sentence fragment with no filler, front-loaded on the core question. It is perhaps too tight for the amount of behavior the tool involves, but nothing in it is redundant.

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 read tool with readOnlyHint and 80% schema coverage, the definition is minimally adequate, but it omits pagination/limit effects, the shape of the returned user list (no output schema exists), and what happens when the emoji has no reactions. Those gaps are modest but real.

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 80% and the schema itself documents guild (omit for default), limit (max 100, default 25), and message_id accepting a link, so the structured fields carry nearly all parameter meaning. The description mentions only the message and emoji, adding nothing about channel, guild scoping, or the limit cap.

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 question the tool answers ("who reacted to a message with a given emoji"), which pins down both the resource (reactions on a message) and the output intent (users). It is clearly distinguishable in kind from mutating siblings such as add_reactions or clear_reactions, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus alternatives, no note that it is the read counterpart of add_reactions/clear_reactions, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid message in a channel the caller can see. Usage must be inferred entirely from the one-line purpose.

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