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

better-discord-mcp

by Sys0xdbg
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

discord_edit_automod_rule

Edit an existing AutoMod rule in a Discord server by providing the guild ID, rule ID, and the fields to update.

Instructions

Edit an AutoMod rule. fields = raw Discord AutoMod fields.

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": {
      "guildId": "<guildId>",
      "ruleId": "<ruleId>",
      "fields": "<fields>"
    },
    "name": "discord_edit_automod_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsYes
ruleIdYes
guildIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description is relied upon for behavioral traits, but it only states 'Edit an AutoMod rule' without disclosing permissions, destructive or additive nature, rate limits, or side effects. This is minimal transparency.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is very short (two sentences) but the second sentence is cryptic and may require external knowledge. It is concise but lacks substance.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and a complex nested parameter, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the edit's behavior (replace vs merge), result, or format requirements for the 'fields' object.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains 'fields = raw Discord AutoMod fields', which hints at the expected input but does not cover the other two parameters (guildId, ruleId) or provide format details.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('Edit') and resource ('AutoMod rule'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create and delete. However, it could be more specific about what aspects of the rule are editable.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions for editing an AutoMod rule.

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