Discord MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a message' implies a destructive mutation, but the description fails to mention critical behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions (e.g., MANAGE_MESSAGES or ownership), if deletions are permanent/irreversible, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., message not found), or what happens upon success. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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

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

The description is extremely concise at just three words, front-loading the core action ('Delete a message') with zero wasted language. Every word earns its place by directly stating the tool's function without unnecessary elaboration.

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

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

Given the tool's complexity (a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context: behavioral traits (permissions, permanence), usage guidelines, and any information about return values or errors. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to address the broader operational context needed for safe and effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both 'channelId' and 'messageId' parameters. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format examples, relationship between parameters, or constraints). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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

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

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a message'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'discord_remove_reaction' or 'discord_cleanup_download' that also involve removal operations, nor does it specify what type of message (e.g., user's own message vs. any message with permissions).

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

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing appropriate permissions), when not to use it (e.g., for bulk deletion vs. single messages), or how it differs from related tools like 'discord_cleanup_download' or 'discord_remove_reaction' in the sibling list.

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