Fetch detailed settings for a specific Discord AutoModeration rule using its rule ID and optional guild ID, so you can review its triggers and actions.
Get detailed configuration of a specific AutoModeration rule
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ruleId | Yes | AutoMod Rule 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it omits that AutoMod config typically requires elevated permissions (Manage Server / View Audit Log), says nothing about error behavior for an unknown ruleId, and gives no hint about the shape of the returned 'detailed configuration'.
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, tightly scoped sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing is padded or repetitive.
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?
The tool is simple (one required ID parameter) and reads without side effects, so the description is nearly sufficient. But with no output schema, it should describe what 'detailed configuration' actually returns (triggers, actions, exemptions, enabled state) or note permission requirements; that gap keeps it from being complete.
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 both ruleId and guildId (with its DISCORD_GUILD_ID default) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('AutoModeration rule') with the scope qualifier 'specific', which distinguishes it from list_automod_rules. However, it never names the alternative sibling tools (list/create/edit/delete_automod_rule), so routing relies on the agent's own inference.
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?
No when-to-use guidance or prerequisites are given. The description does not say to call list_automod_rules first to obtain a ruleId, nor when this is preferable to the list variant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.