discp

edit_emoji

Update a custom emoji's name or role restrictions in Discord by providing its emoji ID, optional new name, and comma-separated role IDs.

Instructions

Edit custom emoji name or restricted roles

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": {
      "emojiId": "<emojiId>"
    },
    "name": "edit_emoji"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New name
`reason`	No	Audit log reason
`emojiId`	Yes	Emoji ID
`guildId`	No	Discord server ID (defaults to DISCORD_GUILD_ID)
`rolesCsv`	No	Comma-separated role IDs (empty string to allow all)

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It signals mutation ('Edit') and names what can change, but omits whether this requires specific permissions, whether rolesCsv replaces or appends to existing restrictions, whether changes are reversible, and audit/rate-limit behavior.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the editable properties with zero padding. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity borders on under-specification given the untold behavioral context.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does the minimum: it says what it edits but not how the operation behaves, what it returns, or what permissions it needs. The rich schema covers parameters, but behavioral completeness is lacking.

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%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema (including 'empty string to allow all' semantics for rolesCsv). The description adds no format or edge-case detail beyond mapping to two of the fields, so it sits at the baseline 3.

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 clear verb (edit) plus resource (custom emoji) and specifies the mutable fields (name, restricted roles). This distinguishes it from the sibling create_emoji/delete_emoji/list_emojis, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., the MANAGE_EMOJIS permission Discord requires), and no routing to alternatives such as delete_emoji or get_emoji_details. The agent must infer usage entirely.

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

Deploy Server