discp

create_webhook

Create a webhook on a specific Discord text channel to enable external services to post messages. Specify the channel ID and webhook name.

Instructions

Create a new webhook on a specific text channel

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "channelId": "<channelId>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Webhook name
`reason`	No	Audit log reason
`channelId`	Yes	Channel ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about required permissions (e.g. Manage Webhooks), that the operation mutates server state, whether the created webhook's token is returned, or any rate-limit behavior. 'Create' implies mutation but no consequences or authority requirements are disclosed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single compact sentence with the key facts front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than ideal density.

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

Completeness3/5

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

There is no output schema, so return values need not be described, and all three parameters are documented in the schema. However, for an unannotated mutation tool, the missing permission/authority and lifecycle context leaves the definition only minimally adequate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (name, channelId, reason are all documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema already provides — notably it never explains the 'reason' audit-log parameter.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new webhook') and adds scope ('on a specific text channel'), which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like list_webhooks, delete_webhook, or send_webhook_message, which an agent may confuse when choosing among webhook operations.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the other webhook tools, no note that the channel must be a text channel the bot can manage, and no mention of prerequisites. The agent must infer all selection context from the sibling names alone.

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

Deploy Server