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 mentions scanning 'recent messages' but doesn't specify how far back 'recent' extends, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of URLs, file names, sizes). For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding what the tool does, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return values, potential errors, or behavioral nuances like how 'recent messages' are defined or if there are pagination considerations. For a tool that likely returns structured data about attachments, more context is needed to use it effectively.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents each parameter's purpose and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that attachments are sourced from 'recent messages,' which is already covered by the 'limit' parameter in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('List all attachments') and resource ('in a Discord channel from recent messages'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'discord_search_messages' or 'discord_get_message_history' that might also retrieve message content including attachments, leaving room for ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 like 'discord_search_messages' or 'discord_get_message_history', nor does it mention any prerequisites or constraints beyond what's implied by the parameters. It lacks explicit usage context, making it unclear how this tool fits within the broader Discord toolset.

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