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 roles

list_roles
Read-only

Lists every role in a Discord server with member counts, color, icon, position, and a plain-language digest of key permissions so you can audit hierarchy and access at a glance.

Instructions

All roles in a server, highest first, with how many members hold each, color (and gradient), icon, position, and a plain-language digest of their key permissions.

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_roles"
  }
}

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

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description's contribution is describing the shape and ordering of the result set — 'highest first', member counts, gradient, permission digest — which is genuinely useful since no output schema exists. It omits any note about cost or size on large servers, and doesn't say whether the permission digest is truncated or how missing icons/colors are represented.

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 front-loaded fragment with no filler; the ordering fact is stated early and the field list follows. It is slightly dense as an unpunctuated noun phrase rather than a sentence, which costs a point on readability but not on economy.

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-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition supplies enough about return content and ordering to call it confidently. Remaining gaps are minor: no mention of result size limits, permissions required, or partial-visibility behavior.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, with the default-guild behavior already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the guild argument, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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?

Names the resource (roles in a server) and enumerates the exact payload: member counts, color/gradient, icon, position, permission digest, plus sort order 'highest first'. An agent can tell this is the read-only enumeration counterpart to bulk_update_roles and reorder_roles without opening a schema. It stops short of 5 because there is no explicit statement distinguishing it from those siblings.

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 statement, no prerequisite (e.g. permissions needed), and no alternative named for cases where the agent wants role assignment or reordering. Usage is only implied by the 'list' framing and the sibling naming convention, which the description itself does not lean on.

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