Retrieve Discord audit log entries, optionally filtered by user ID and limit, to review moderation and administrative actions.
Fetch server audit log entries with optional filtering by user and limit
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of entries to fetch (1-100, default: 25) | |
| userId | No | Filter logs by executor or target user ID | |
| guildId | No | Discord server ID (defaults to DISCORD_GUILD_ID) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 fails to disclose that audit logs typically require a privileged permission (View Audit Log), that results are paginated/ordered, or what happens when no filters are supplied. 'Fetch' implies read-only but nothing more is confirmed.
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 wasted words; the resource is stated first and qualifiers follow. Efficient, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally scoped.
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 3-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basics but omits meaningful context: permission requirements for audit logs, pagination behavior, and default ordering. Adequate but with identifiable gaps.
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 already documents all three parameters. The description mentions user and limit filtering but omits guildId entirely and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.
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?
Clear specific verb+resource: 'Fetch server audit log entries'. An agent immediately knows this retrieves audit log data. However, it does not distinguish itself from any sibling or clarify scope (which server, whose logs), leaving minor ambiguity.
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 phrase 'with optional filtering by user and limit' implies the parameters are optional and what they filter, giving some contextual usage. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternate tools one might reach for instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.