Discord MCP - Discord server management MCP for AI agents

List blueprints

list_blueprints

Read-only

Retrieve saved server blueprints from the local store to review or reuse existing Discord server configurations.

Instructions

Saved blueprints in the local store.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_blueprints"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.4.2Nov 12, 2026
- addedInput schema / $schema
```
Added value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
```
First observedv1.0.2Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds only that results come from a 'local store', which is minor locality context, and says nothing about whether an empty store errors, whether results are paginated, or what any entry contains.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but it is a sentence fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose, leaving the action implicit. Brevity here reflects under-specification as much as conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description should at minimum state what a blueprint record looks like or what the list contains. Instead the agent is left guessing about the return shape and about what distinguishes 'blueprints' from other saved objects in the store.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing beyond the input schema to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. The description neither contradicts nor obscures this fact.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource ('blueprints') and adds scope qualifiers ('saved', 'local store'), which hints this is a retrieval tool rather than a definition catalog. However, it is a noun fragment with no verb, so the agent must infer 'list' from the tool name alone and gets no statement of what a blueprint actually is.

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 call this tool, no mention of prerequisites, and no differentiation from plausible alternatives such as list_reference_layouts. The only implicit signal is the read-only listing nature conveyed by the name.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server