discord_create_inviteCreate a channel invite while withholding its secret code and URL; configure expiry, use limits, uniqueness, and temporary access for controlled sharing.
Create an invite for a channel without returning its secret code or URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxAge | No | ||
| reason | No | ||
| unique | No | ||
| confirm | No | ||
| maxUses | No | ||
| channelId | Yes | ||
| temporary | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| error | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds a key behavioral detail not covered by annotations: the invite is created without returning its secret code or URL. It still omits permission requirements and the role of the confirm parameter.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the important caveat about not returning the secret is included. It is appropriately concise, though very terse for a 7-parameter mutation tool.
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?
Output schema coverage reduces the need to explain return values, and annotations cover basic safety traits. However, for a 7-parameter mutation tool with no schema parameter descriptions, the description leaves major gaps around parameter meaning, confirm behavior, and usage conditions.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage across 7 parameters, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only implies that channelId is the target channel and does not explain maxAge, maxUses, unique, temporary, reason, or confirm.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: create an invite for a channel. It clearly differs from sibling list/read tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative or sibling.
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?
It gives no guidance on when to use this versus discord_list_invites or other invite-related operations. The usage is implied by the name and description, but prerequisites, alternatives, and exclusions are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed