Discord MCP Server

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 action ('Download') and output ('return it as MCP file reference'), but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or whether the download is cached/persistent. This is a significant gap for a download operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and output without any wasted words. Every element ('Download a Discord attachment', 'return it as MCP file reference') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 moderate complexity (a download operation with one parameter) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output format but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error cases) and usage guidelines, which are needed for full completeness.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'url' fully documented in the schema as 'Discord CDN URL of the attachment to download'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Download a Discord attachment') and the resource ('Discord attachment'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'discord_list_attachments' (which lists) or 'discord_send_message' (which sends). It precisely defines the verb and target without redundancy.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid Discord CDN URL from another tool like 'discord_list_attachments'), exclusions, or contextual usage scenarios, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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