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

Send direct message

send_dm

Sends a direct message from the Discord bot to a member who shares a server, using a member name or ID and optional guild; returns a clear failure when the recipient has DMs closed.

Instructions

Send a direct message from the bot to a member who shares a server with it. Fails gracefully when the recipient has DMs closed. The message comes from the bot, never from a user account.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "user": "<user>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "send_dm"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the real behavioral load and does so well: it discloses the sender identity ('comes from the bot, never from a user account') and the failure mode ('fails gracefully when the recipient has DMs closed'). What remains vague is what 'fails gracefully' actually returns or raises, and there is no mention of rate limits or permission requirements.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the constraint, then the failure mode and identity guarantee. Nothing is repeated from the title and no sentence is filler.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs before calling: valid recipient scope, bot-as-sender identity, and DM-closed behavior. It is not fully complete — the return value and the concrete meaning of the graceful failure are left unstated.

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 67% — 'user' and 'guild' are documented inline, while 'content' is constrained only by minLength/maxLength. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema (no format for user IDs vs names, no note on the default-guild fallback), so the baseline 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 description gives a specific verb and resource ('Send a direct message ... to a member') plus a scoping condition (the member must share a server with the bot), which inherently separates it from channel-oriented siblings like send_message. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting any sibling tool, so an agent must infer that routing rather than read it.

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?

The prerequisite ('a member who shares a server with it') is stated, which effectively tells the agent when the call is valid. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over send_message or send_webhook_message, and no mention of what to do when the shared-server condition fails.

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