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

List integrations

list_integrations
Read-only

Lists installed Discord server integrations—bots, Twitch, and YouTube links—so AI agents can inspect what is connected to a guild.

Instructions

Installed integrations: bots, Twitch and YouTube links.

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_integrations"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
guildNoGuild (server) name or ID. Omit to use the default guild.

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

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safe-read profile, so the description owes additional context: whether elevated permissions (e.g. Manage Server) are required to view integrations, whether results are paginated, or what fields each integration carries. None of that is present — the description only restates what categories appear, which is close to the purpose statement rather than behavior.

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 noun phrase with zero waste, but it is also telegraphic and under-specified — there is no leading verb and no supporting sentence. Brevity here is closer to incompleteness than to disciplined concision.

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 zero-required-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and a readOnlyHint, most of the burden is already carried by structured fields, so the sparse description is not a fatal gap. Still, permission requirements and the shape of returned integration entries are left entirely unaddressed.

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%; the single parameter is fully documented in-schema with the default-guild fallback. The description adds no scope, format, or naming guidance for the guild parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 fragment names a specific resource and enumerates the concrete contents being returned (bots, Twitch and YouTube links), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like list_webhooks or list_roles. It stops short of a verb phrase and never explicitly contrasts itself with any alternative, so it is clear but not maximally so.

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 when-to-use guidance, no stated preconditions, and no named alternative. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the tool for enumerating installed integrations rather than, say, listing channels or webhooks.

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