Create a stage channel for audio events and presentations, with a required name and optional guild, category, and bitrate settings.
Create a new stage channel for audio events and presentations
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Stage channel name | |
| reason | No | Audit log reason | |
| bitrate | No | Audio bitrate in bits/s | |
| guildId | No | Discord server ID (defaults to DISCORD_GUILD_ID) | |
| categoryId | No | Parent category ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does not say this is a mutating/creating operation requiring channel-management permissions, what the guildId default resolves to, or what evidence the caller gets back. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and the resource it creates are stated immediately. Nothing is wasted, though brevity here reflects an absence of detail rather than tight editing.
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?
For a 5-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits permission requirements, guild/category resolution behavior, and any sense of what is returned or what side effects occur. The rich schema covers inputs, but the behavioral side is entirely unaddressed.
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 every parameter (name, reason, bitrate, guildId, categoryId) is already documented in the schema, meeting the baseline of 3. The description adds nothing about parameter usage beyond what the schema states, but no compensation is needed.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new stage channel') and adds the intended use case ('audio events and presentations'), which implicitly distinguishes it from create_voice_channel and create_text_channel. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this over the other channel-creation siblings (create_voice_channel, create_text_channel, create_forum_channel, create_category), nor any prerequisite or ordering information (e.g. needing a category first). The intended-use clause is descriptive, not routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.