Discord MCP - Discord server management MCP for AI agents

List servers

list_servers

Read-only

Lists every Discord server your bots are in, labeled by which bot can reach each one with approximate member counts, so you can pick the right server before running bot tools.

Instructions

Every server your bots are in, each labeled with which bot reaches it, with approximate member counts. A server more than one of your bots is in appears once per bot, with handles_server marking the one that tools run as there. Use get_server_overview for one server's full detail.

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_servers"
  }
}

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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral detail beyond that – per-bot row duplication, the handles_server marker identifying the executing bot, and the caveat that member counts are approximate. It stops short of stating pagination behavior or result-size limits, which matters for an account with many servers.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the scope, no filler. The clause about handles_server is slightly tangled ('marking the one that tools run as there') and costs a re-read, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and simple read-only annotations, the definition supplies what an agent needs: the unit of a row, the dedup rule, and the flag semantics. Pagination or a hint about list size is the only meaningful omission.

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 no parameters, so the baseline applies; the description correctly adds nothing about inputs and instead spends its words on output shape.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States the exact resource and scope ('every server your bots are in'), plus what each row carries (which bot reaches it, approximate member counts). It is unmistakably distinct from get_server_overview, which it names directly.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly routes the agent: this is the multi-server list, and get_server_overview is for one server's full detail. The condition selecting the alternative is stated, not implied.

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

Deploy Server