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 webhooks

list_webhooks
Read-only

Retrieve webhooks for a Discord server or specific channel without exposing token values, so agents can inspect integrations before managing or auditing them.

Instructions

Webhooks in the server or one channel. Tokens are never included.

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_webhooks"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

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

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description earns credit for the non-obvious disclosure that webhook tokens are redacted from results, which prevents an agent from expecting to fetch a token here; it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether channel-scoped results include server-level webhooks.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with scope and immediately followed by the security caveat; nothing is padded or redundant. The brevity is close to under-specification rather than verbosity, so it is not a 5 on wording quality.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essentials (scope plus token redaction) at a minimum viable level. It leaves out result shape, pagination, and default-vs-explicit guild behavior, which the schema only partially carries.

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 coverage is 50%: guild is documented, channel is bare. The description partially compensates by framing the two scopes as "the server or one channel", which clarifies what channel does, but it adds no format or behavior detail (e.g. channel name vs ID, precedence when both are supplied).

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 is a noun phrase with no verb: "Webhooks in the server or one channel." Combined with the tool name list_webhooks the intent is recoverable, and it does signal the two scopes of the listing, but on its own it never states that it lists/returns anything.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the scope phrase: an agent can infer it lists webhooks for a whole server or narrowed to one channel, which is the key selection decision. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g. manage-webhooks permission), and no mention of any alternative or when to avoid it.

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