Skip to main content
Glama

discord_get_channel_permissions

Retrieve detailed permission overwrites for a Discord channel, showing role-based and member-specific access controls.

Instructions

List all permission overwrites on a channel (per role and per member).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
channel_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • Handler implementation for discord_get_channel_permissions which retrieves channel permission overwrites.
    case "discord_get_channel_permissions": {
      const channel = await getGuildChannel(args.channel_id as string);
      const overwrites = channel.permissionOverwrites.cache.map((ow) => ({
        id: ow.id,
        type: ow.type === 0 ? "role" : "member",
        allow: serializePermissions(ow.allow),
        deny: serializePermissions(ow.deny),
      }));
      return { content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(overwrites, null, 2) }] };
    }
  • Tool registration and input schema for discord_get_channel_permissions.
    {
      name: "discord_get_channel_permissions",
      description: "List all permission overwrites on a channel (per role and per member).",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: { channel_id: { type: "string" } },
        required: ["channel_id"],
      },
    },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists permission overwrites, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions (e.g., 'VIEW_CHANNEL'), rate limits, pagination, or error handling. The description lacks details on what 'permission overwrites' entail (e.g., allow/deny settings) or the output format, leaving significant gaps for a tool that interacts with Discord's permission system.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all permission overwrites') and specifies the scope ('on a channel') and details ('per role and per member'). There is no wasted wording, repetition, or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of Discord permissions, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or error cases, nor does it explain the return values (e.g., structure of overwrites). For a tool that likely returns detailed permission data, this leaves the agent under-informed about how to interpret results or handle failures.

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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description adds value by implying 'channel_id' is used to specify the target channel, but it doesn't explain the parameter's format (e.g., numeric ID), source, or validation rules. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description's minimal addition reduces it to 3, as it doesn't fully compensate for the schema's lack of details.

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 clearly states the action ('List all permission overwrites') and the resource ('on a channel'), specifying both role and member scopes. It distinguishes from siblings like 'discord_audit_permissions' or 'discord_set_role_permission' by focusing on retrieval rather than modification or auditing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'discord_get_guild_info' or 'discord_list_roles', which might also involve permissions indirectly, keeping it from a perfect 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing channel access), exclusions (e.g., not for guild-wide permissions), or direct siblings like 'discord_audit_permissions' for audit logs or 'discord_set_role_permission' for modifications. Usage is implied only by the action 'list,' leaving the agent to infer context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/PaSympa/discord-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server