Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
better-discord-mcp

better-discord-mcp

by Sys0xdbg
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

discord_create_guild

Create a new Discord server and become its owner. Requires a server name, with an optional icon as a data URI or URL.

Instructions

Create a new server (you become owner). icon is a data URI or URL.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "discord_create_guild"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
iconNo
nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the user becomes owner and that icons can be data URIs or URLs. However, it does not mention required permissions, rate limits, side effects (e.g., creating a default channel), or error conditions. This is minimal but not misleading.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, no filler. Every word adds value. The most important information (action, resource, ownership, icon format) is front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the low complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no enums) and no annotations, the description is adequate for basic usage. It explains the critical parameters and ownership effect. However, it could mention the return value (the created guild object) and required permissions for completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning: it clarifies that icon accepts data URI or URL. The 'name' parameter is not elaborated beyond the schema, but it is straightforward. The description compensates for the coverage gap partially, though name constraints (length, characters) are missing.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new server'). It also specifies that the user becomes owner, which is a key distinction from edit/delete tools. This contrasts well with sibling tools like 'discord_edit_guild' or 'discord_delete_guild'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for creating a server where the user gains ownership, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to create vs edit vs delete). There is no guidance on prerequisites or conflicts with other tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools