MCP-Discord Stream

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.4.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools target distinct resources and actions (create/delete/read/send), but there is overlap among the streaming and reading tools (e.g., read_messages vs read_messages_stream vs read_multiple_channels vs get_forum_post_stream). Descriptions help clarify the differences, though the streaming variants could be confused.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow the consistent pattern 'discord_verb_noun', with verbs like create, delete, get, list, read, send, edit, remove, and archive. The convention is uniform and makes the tool's purpose predictable.
Tool Count2/5
At 31 tools, the server exceeds the recommended range and feels heavy. Several tools are near-duplicates (e.g., archive_forum_stream vs archive_multiple_forums, get_forum_post vs get_forum_post_stream), suggesting consolidation would improve the set.
Completeness3/5
The server covers a broad range of Discord features including channels, categories, messages, reactions, webhooks, and forums. However, it lacks update operations for messages and most channels, and there is no member/role/permission management, leaving notable gaps in the domain.
Average 3.3/5 across 31 of 31 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'Retrieves details' but does not state whether it is read-only, whether it requires authentication, how it handles missing posts, or any pagination/rate-limit behavior. This leaves significant ambiguity.
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 a single sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified. It is concise but not well-structured for the agent's needs, lacking any breakdown of details, return type, or usage context.
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 the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what is returned (e.g., message list, metadata, ordering) and any limitations. It does none of this, making the tool under-specified for a one-parameter getter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema defines one parameter 'threadId' (string) with no description. The tool description adds no explanation of what a threadId is, how to obtain it, or how it relates to a forum post. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description does even less to compensate.
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 specifies the action ('Retrieves details') and the resource ('forum post'), including that it also gets 'its messages'. This distinguishes it from list-type tools, but not from the sibling discord_get_forum_post_stream, which likely has a similar retrieval purpose.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like discord_get_forum_post_stream or discord_list_forum_threads. No context is provided about prerequisites, filtering, or scenarios where one tool would be preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose permissions requirements, error behavior, or whether the operation is read-only beyond the implication of 'retrieves'. It also does not describe the return structure.
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?
A single sentence with no redundancy, front-loading the main verb and object. While minimal, it efficiently conveys the core purpose.
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?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the full return payload and usage context. It only gives examples of information returned and does not help the agent decide when to use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema defines a single parameter 'guildId' with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving the agent without guidance on what value to pass or its format.
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 tool retrieves detailed information about a Discord server, specifically mentioning channels and member count, which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other operations.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like discord_get_channel_list or discord_list_servers, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions a configurable limit and gives no information about return format, ordering, authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential side effects, leaving significant uncertainty.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and there is no superfluous content.
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 the lack of output schema, no annotations, and only a minimal description, the tool is under-specified for practical use. Details about return format, message ordering, pagination, and channel-specific behaviors are missing, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It vaguely references 'configurable limit' but provides no detail about what limit controls, nor does it clarify channelId beyond its name. The schema's default and constraints are not echoed in the description.
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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves messages') and identifies the resource ('Discord text channel') plus a configurable limit, making the core function clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like read_messages_stream or read_multiple_channels, but the scope is reasonably distinct for a basic read operation.
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 regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives such as discord_search_messages, discord_read_messages_stream, or discord_read_multiple_channels. The description only states what the tool does without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only states 'sends a message' without mentioning any side effects, requirements for webhook validity, rate limits, or how optional parameters like threadId or username affect behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the key action, containing no fluff. However, it is structurally minimal and omits necessary parameter details, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.
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?
For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It doesn't explain how webhook credentials are obtained, when to use this over discord_send, or any usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and the description provides no parameter explanations. All six parameters, including the required webhookId, webhookToken, and content, are left undefined, forcing the agent to guess their meanings from names alone.
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 states a specific verb ('Sends'), a resource ('a message to a Discord channel'), and the distinguishing method ('using a webhook'). This differentiates it from siblings like discord_send, which likely uses a bot, and from webhook management tools.
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 choose this webhook-based tool over alternatives like discord_send. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It states only that a category is created, but omits details like required permissions, error conditions, idempotency, or what happens on duplicate names. This is a minimal disclosure.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It effectively communicates the core purpose without bloat, so every word earns its place.
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?
The tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description only covers the basic action. It lacks context on return values, failure modes, permission requirements, and relationships to related tools, making it incomplete for a robust agent interaction.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not add meaning to any of the four parameters (name, reason, guildId, position). It only mentions 'category' and 'Discord server' without explaining how each parameter maps to the operation, leaving the agent without sufficient semantic information.
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 'Creates a new category in a Discord server' clearly states the action (creates) and the resource (category in a Discord server), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like discord_delete_category and discord_edit_category.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or intended use cases. It is a bare definition without contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Creates', which implies a mutating operation, but does not disclose required permissions, rate limits, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral insight is given.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It is concise with zero wasted words, earning a high score for size and structure.
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?
This is a create tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too thin: it does not explain prerequisites, value constraints, return format, or any edge cases. The tool is simple but still requires more contextual detail than provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (channelId, name, avatar, reason). It only hints at 'for a Discord channel' pointing to channelId, but offers no value for name/avatar/reason usage or format.
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 uses a specific verb 'Creates' with a clear resource 'webhook' and location 'for a Discord channel'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like discord_edit_webhook, discord_delete_webhook, and discord_send_webhook_message.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that webhooks must be created before sending messages, or that editing/deleting are separate operations. No context or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Deletes' without noting that deletion is permanent, what permissions are needed, or whether deleting a category affects child channels. No such details are provided.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, but lacks some important operational details that could be added without bloating the text.
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?
For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is underspecified. It does not mention the return value, potential errors, or side effects, leaving the agent without a clear picture of what happens upon invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID' which partially explains categoryId, but it does not describe the 'reason' parameter at all, nor any constraints or expected formats for either parameter.
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 ('Deletes'), the resource ('Discord category'), and the specific input ('by ID'). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like discord_delete_channel and discord_delete_message.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or warnings. It lacks context that would help an agent decide between deleting a category and using other delete tools (e.g., discord_delete_channel).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not warn that deletion is permanent, whether permissions are needed, or what happens to the webhook URL/messages. It only restates the basic function.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without redundancy.
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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter guidance, the description is too minimal to fully support correct invocation. The webhookToken parameter is critical for Discord API calls but is not explained, and no usage context or side effects are provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter details. It does not explain the role of webhookToken or reason, leaving the agent to infer their meanings solely from names.
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 ('Deletes') and the resource ('existing webhook for a Discord channel'). It is distinct from sibling tools like discord_delete_message or discord_delete_channel by explicitly naming the webhook resource.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when deletion is appropriate, prerequisites, or that discord_edit_webhook might be used for non-destructive changes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'edits' without revealing whether this is a partial update or a full replacement, what permissions are needed, whether the webhook token is mandatory, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and resource. There is no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for a simple edit operation.
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?
For a tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It provides no information about return values, error conditions, authorization requirements, or the semantics of the parameters. This is incomplete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the six parameters (name, avatar, reason, channelId, webhookId, webhookToken) are explained in the schema. The description also fails to add any meaning beyond the bare verb, leaving the agent to guess the role of parameters like 'reason' or 'webhookToken'. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage at all.
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 tool's purpose: 'Edits an existing webhook for a Discord channel.' It uses a specific verb ('edits') and resource ('existing webhook'), and the scope is clear. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_webhook' or 'delete_webhook' by focusing on modification of an existing entity.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, required fields beyond the schema, or conditions under which this tool should be preferred over create/delete webhook. The usage context is only implied by the name and sibling tools, not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Searches for messages' without revealing read-only nature, pagination defaults, rate limits, or result format, all of which are important for a search tool.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise, though perhaps too minimal for the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is severely inadequate. It omits essential context about how search works, result ordering, pagination behavior, and edge cases, making the tool under-specified for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema describes all 14 parameters clearly (100% coverage), from content filters to pagination controls, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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 'Searches for messages in a Discord server,' which uses a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like discord_read_messages due to the search intent, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.
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?
The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like discord_read_messages or discord_read_messages_stream. There is no context about search-specific use cases, exclusions, or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a write operation ('Adds'), but discloses nothing about permissions, rate limits, side effects, or response behavior. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.
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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter documentation, the description is insufficient for safe and correct invocation. It tells what the tool does but not how to use it or what the parameters mean. More detail is needed for a complete picture.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides zero information about the 'threadId' and 'message' parameters. The agent receives no help understanding what values to provide or how they map to the action.
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 uses a specific verb ('Adds') and resource ('reply to an existing forum post or thread'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like discord_create_forum_post which creates new posts. The scope of action is unambiguous.
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 word 'existing' implies this is for replying to already-created posts, not for creating new ones, but no alternatives or explicit when-to-use guidance is provided. The usage context is only implied, not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, error handling, idempotency, permissions, or response behavior, leaving the agent uninformed about the operation's implications.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that is front-loaded and free of verbiage. It efficiently communicates the core action.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 3 undocumented parameters, the description lacks key details about usage, expected outcomes, and edge cases. It is not sufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.
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 compensate. It provides only minimal context: 'emoji reaction' and 'specific Discord message', without explaining emoji format (unicode vs custom ID) or the relationship between channelId/messageId. The parameter names are self-evident, but no additional semantics are given.
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 uses a specific verb ('Adds'), identifies the resource ('emoji reaction' to a 'specific Discord message'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'remove_reaction' and 'add_multiple_reactions' by focusing on a single emoji reaction.
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 like 'add_multiple_reactions' or 'remove_reaction'. The description simply states the action without context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the deletion action but fails to mention that deletion is permanent, that it may delete associated messages or threads, or that specific permissions are required. This lack of disclosure is a significant gap for a destructive tool.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with the verb 'Deletes' front-loaded. It contains no superfluous words and is appropriately short for the tool's simplicity.
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?
For a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks any mention of consequences, permissions, or use-case context. While it states the core function, it does not provide sufficient information for an agent to safely invoke it.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'with an optional reason', which hints at reason's optionality but does not clarify its purpose (e.g., an audit log reason). channelId is self-explanatory from its name, but reason remains ambiguous without further context.
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 verb 'Deletes' and the resource 'a Discord channel', which fully defines the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like discord_delete_category and discord_delete_message by explicitly naming channel deletion.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it. The description simply describes what the tool does without contextualizing its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the destructive action 'Deletes' and notes 'optional reason', but does not disclose irreversibility, permission requirements, effects on replies, or return behavior—especially important for a deletion operation.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence, front-loads the action and target, and contains no filler or redundant information.
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?
This is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema; the description omits important context such as irreversibility, permissions, and what the response contains. The optional reason mention and resource clarification are useful but insufficient for trustworthy invocation.
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%, yet the description adds only 'optional reason' and implies threadId identifies the post/thread. It does not explain what the reason is used for or provide syntax/format details beyond what parameter names already suggest.
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 uses a specific verb 'Deletes' with a clear resource 'forum post or thread' and mentions 'optional reason'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like discord_delete_message or discord_delete_channel by targeting forum posts/threads.
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 such as discord_delete_message or discord_delete_channel. There are no usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions; only the implied use case from the resource type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention required permissions, the irreversible nature of deletion, or any side effects. It only describes the basic delete action, lacking the context expected from a destructive tool.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Despite the tool's simplicity, the description lacks operational context such as permission requirements, the permanent nature of deletion, and the role of the optional reason parameter. With no annotations or output schema, this bare description is insufficient for correct agent usage.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints at messageId via 'specific message' and channelId via 'text channel', but it does not explain the optional 'reason' parameter or provide any parameter-level detail beyond the property names.
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 verb 'Deletes', the resource 'a specific message', and the location 'from a Discord text channel'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like discord_delete_category or discord_delete_channel, making the purpose unambiguous.
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. It doesn't mention exclusions, prerequisites, or any alternative tools. The description simply states the action without selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, but it only states the action. It does not disclose consequences, such as whether the reaction is removed for the authenticated user or any user, whether it fails silently if no reaction exists, or any permission requirements. The optional userId parameter is left unexplained.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It achieves maximum conciseness while conveying the core purpose.
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 the tool's complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations, many siblings), the description is far too minimal. It lacks essential context about behavior, parameter roles, and usage scenarios, making it inadequate for an agent to invoke correctly without additional assumptions.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides minimal parameter insight. It clarifies that 'emoji' refers to the emoji reaction, but channelId, messageId, and userId are not explained. This is insufficient for a 4-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.
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 uses a specific verb ('Removes') and resource ('specific emoji reaction from a Discord message'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like discord_add_reaction and discord_add_multiple_reactions. It unequivocally states the primary action and target.
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. It does not specify whether to use it for removing the bot's own reaction or another user's, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions. This is a clear gap given the large sibling tool list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and optional tags, but fails to mention required permissions, potential side effects, or what happens if the channel is not a forum. This is insufficient for a state-changing operation.
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?
The description is a single sentence that directly states the core functionality with no superfluous words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.
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?
The tool has no annotations and no output schema, and the description does not explain the return value, error conditions, or permissions required. While the purpose is clear, the description lacks necessary context for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior in a complex environment.
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?
The description mentions 'optional tags,' which aligns with the schema's optional tags parameter, but it provides no additional meaning for the required parameters (forumChannelId, title, content). With only 25% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate for the low coverage.
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 uses the specific verb 'Creates' and identifies the resource as 'a new post in a Discord forum channel,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like discord_create_text_channel (creates a channel) and discord_reply_to_forum (replies to an existing post). The mention of 'optional tags' adds further specificity.
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 the tool is for creating new forum posts, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as discord_reply_to_forum or discord_send. There are no exclusion criteria or mentions of alternative tools, so the agent must infer usage from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only describes the creation action and mentions an optional topic, but it does not cover permissions, failure conditions, rate limits, or side effects, which are relevant for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no redundant wording, effectively front-loading the tool's core purpose.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It lacks information about required permissions, success/failure behavior, or relationship to sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it.
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?
The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It mentions 'optional topic' but does not explain the purpose of guildId or channelName beyond their names, and the topic's semantics are left vague. It adds minimal value over the schema.
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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('new text channel in a Discord server'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like discord_create_category or discord_create_forum_post.
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 when a text channel needs to be created, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternative creation tools, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Logs in' without explaining side effects (e.g., whether a session is established, whether the token must be pre-configured, error behavior, or if this is a state-changing operation). This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately conveys the core action.
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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., token must be configured), the effect on subsequent API calls, or expected outcomes. For a login tool that likely needs to be called first, this is a significant gap.
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?
The schema has one optional parameter 'token' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description mentions a 'configured token' but does not clarify the meaning of the token parameter or whether it overrides the configured one. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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 a specific action ('Logs in') and a resource ('Discord'), using the configured token. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which are about messages, channels, forums, etc.) by being the only login-related tool.
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 this tool is needed to authenticate before using other Discord operations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it, prerequisites, or alternatives. There are no direct alternatives among siblings, but the lack of explicit timing guidance makes this average.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it only states the action without disclosing any behavioral traits such as error handling, rate limits, or permission requirements. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 3-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is a minimum viable statement of purpose. However, it lacks usage guidance, behavioral details, and parameter semantics, which are clear gaps for a complete description.
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?
The input schema has three parameters with zero description coverage. The description only hints that 'emojis' is an array (through 'multiple emoji reactions'), but it does not clarify emoji format (e.g., Unicode vs custom IDs), and channelId/messageId are not elaborated. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 ('Adds multiple emoji reactions') and the resource ('to a Discord message at once'), which is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling 'discord_add_reaction' (singular). The verb and scope are unambiguous.
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?
Usage context is implied by the word 'multiple' (use this instead of a single-reaction tool), but the description does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to choose this tool over 'discord_add_reaction'. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It notes that the tool 'streams' threads and includes active/archived threads with time filtering, but does not clarify whether 'archives' means a read-only export or a state-changing action (e.g., marking threads archived), nor does it mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects. This ambiguity is a significant gap.
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?
The description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary action ('Archives') and efficiently includes key scope and filtering capabilities without unnecessary words.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the archive operation returns (e.g., a file, a confirmation, a link) and any prerequisites (e.g., required permissions). It does neither, leaving the agent uncertain about expected outputs and preconditions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a bit of context by mentioning 'time range filtering' and 'active and archived threads', which maps to afterDate/beforeDate and includeArchived, but it does not add substantive syntax or format details beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Archives') and identifies the exact resource ('entire forum channel') and mechanism ('streaming all threads and their messages'). It also clarifies scope (active/archived threads, time range filtering), which differentiates it from siblings like discord_archive_multiple_forums.
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 a clear use case—archiving a single entire forum channel with optional time filtering—but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as discord_archive_multiple_forums or discord_get_forum_post_stream. There are no exclusions or when-not-to-use notes, giving only implied guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool edits name and position, but fails to mention permissions, error handling, reversibility, or side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that immediately communicates the tool's function. It has no fluff, unnecessary words, or repetition. It is perfectly efficient for the simple operation it describes.
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 the lack of schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the effect of position changes, the purpose of the reason field, or the success/failure behavior. This leaves the agent with significant gaps for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'name' and 'position' are the editable fields, but it does not explain 'categoryId' (required) or the 'reason' parameter. This partial compensation gives some meaning, but not full coverage of the parameters.
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 ('Edits'), the resource ('existing Discord category'), and the scope ('name and position'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like discord_create_category and discord_delete_category.
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 purpose implies usage: use this tool to modify an existing category's name or position. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites mentioned. The usage context is only implicit, so a score of 3 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description claims to list 'all threads' yet the schema's limit parameter caps archived threads at 100, making the claim potentially misleading when more than 100 archived threads exist. With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden but omits return format, auth requirements, and the interplay between includeArchived and limit.
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?
The description is a single sentence that directly states the tool's core function without extraneous words. It is front-loaded and easily parseable, making it appropriately concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool, the description offers a general overview but lacks critical context such as pagination behavior, the fact that limit applies only to archived threads, and what the returned data looks like. Since there is no output schema, the description should compensate with more behavioral context but does not fully do so.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond what is already provided. The baseline of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description does not contradict or extend it.
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 tool's function: listing threads in a Discord forum channel, including active and archived threads. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like discord_get_forum_post (single post) and discord_get_forum_channels (channel listings), making its purpose unambiguous.
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 listing forum threads but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusion conditions. The purpose is clear enough to infer basic usage, but the lack of explicit direction prevents a higher score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the action (lists) but does not cover return format, authentication requirements, pagination, or any rate limits. For a simple read tool this is minimal but still lacking.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that directly states the tool's action and scope. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
With only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and input. While it does not describe the return value, the tool is simple enough that the output of 'lists all forum channels' is reasonably implied. It is complete for its simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no description for guildId, and schema coverage is 0%. The description maps the parameter to 'specified Discord server (guild)', which adds helpful context but does not explain the parameter's format or where to obtain it. Still, it provides the basic meaning needed.
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 tool lists all forum channels in a specified guild, using a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('forum channels'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like discord_get_channel_list (channels in general) and discord_list_forum_threads (threads within forums).
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 when to use the tool (to list forum channels for a guild) but does not explicitly state when alternatives might be more appropriate. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are provided, so the guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait (sequential processing) and the scope of collection (all threads and messages), which adds value. However, it does not clarify whether archiving is read-only or has side effects, nor what happens after collection, so it only partially satisfies the requirement.
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?
The description is two sentences, efficiently front-loaded with the core purpose and then a clarifying detail. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the operation returns or produces. It states that threads and messages are collected but does not describe the output format, return value, or post-processing behavior. Given the batch complexity and missing expectations, the description is insufficiently complete for an agent to fully understand what happens after the call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides 100% description coverage for all four parameters (forumChannelIds, afterDate, beforeDate, includeArchived), so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already exposes.
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 tool's action ('Archives multiple forum channels at once') and distinctively names the resource and scope (multiple forums, all threads and messages). It differentiates from siblings like discord_archive_forum_stream by emphasizing the batch aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (when archiving multiple forums) and clarifies the sequential processing, which is useful context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools for single-forum archiving or provide exclusions, so it stops short of full guideline transparency.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful scope context ('the bot is a member of'), which constrains the results. However, it does not explicitly confirm that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe any potential side effects, permissions required, or rate limits. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and scope, making it easy to parse.
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?
This is a low-complexity tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description conveys the core behavior clearly, but it does not specify the return format (e.g., server names, IDs, or objects). Given the simplicity, it is largely complete, but the lack of output schema detail prevents a perfect score.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage trivially. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because none exist. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, which applies here.
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 uses a specific verb 'Lists' and identifies the resource 'all Discord servers the bot is a member of'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like discord_get_server_info (which targets a specific server) and discord_get_channel_list (which targets channels).
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that discord_get_server_info is better for specific server details or that this is the general inventorying tool. The description simply states the action without any contextual or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral details: sequential channel processing and time range filtering. However, it omits output format, error handling, authentication needs, and the streaming nature's implications (e.g., long-running, potential for partial results).
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 concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the primary function, and the second adds key processing detail, making it well-structured and front-loaded.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations. The description fails to explain what the stream returns, how errors are handled, or any operational caveats. This is a significant gap for a tool that 'streams' messages, leaving the agent uncertain about expected output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds a general mention of time range filtering but no additional semantics beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.
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 it streams messages from multiple Discord channels at once, which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like discord_read_messages (single channel) and discord_search_messages by highlighting the multi-channel aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear context for use: retrieving messages from multiple channels simultaneously. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as comparing with discord_read_messages or discord_read_messages_stream.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action (send/reply) but does not mention potential side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or failure behaviors. For a write operation, this lack of extra context is insufficient.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and includes the optional feature. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.
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?
For a simple send tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and optional parameter. It could mention return values (e.g., message ID) or channel requirements, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning to parameters. It does this effectively: 'specified Discord text channel' clarifies channelId, 'message' maps directly, and 'optionally reply to another message by providing its message ID' explains replyToMessageId. It does not detail formats or constraints but adequately compensates for the empty schema.
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 ('Sends a message') and the resource ('specified Discord text channel'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like discord_send_webhook_message. It also mentions the optional reply feature, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.
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 use for sending messages to a text channel and optionally replying, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., webhook vs. bot message) or mention prerequisites like permissions. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description is the only source of behavioral information. It states the core operation (lists channels) and the optional filter, but does not disclose prerequisites (like 'View Channels' permission) or response format (e.g., channel IDs/names). For a simple read-only list, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
The description is a single sentence of 16 words, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema information.
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?
The tool is simple (2 params, full schema coverage, no output schema). The description sufficiently conveys the purpose and optional filtering. However, without an output schema, it does not describe the shape of the returned list (e.g., channel objects with IDs/names), which prevents a 5. It does stand out among sibling tools as the general channel list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%: both guildId and channelTypes are fully described. The description's mention of 'text, voice, forum, etc.' is redundant with the schema's type mapping. The baseline 3 applies because the schema already carries the parameter semantics; the description adds no meaningful extra detail.
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 ('Lists all channels') and the resource ('a Discord server'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like discord_get_forum_channels (which lists only forum channels) and discord_get_server_info (server metadata) by specifying the general channel list with optional type filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for use: list all channels, optionally filtered by type. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'for forum channels, use discord_get_forum_channels') or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5. The phrase 'optional filtering by channel type' signals that this is a general-purpose list tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns all message events including progress updates and specifies a default time range, adding behavioral context. However, it omits details like authentication requirements, stream termination behavior, or error handling, which would improve transparency for an agent.
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?
The description is two concise sentences with no redundant wording. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by key details about time range and return data, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 tool's streaming nature and lack of output schema, the description provides essential return information ('all message events including progress updates') and a default time frame. It could be more complete by explaining stream lifecycle, pagination, or rate limits, but for a relatively simple tool, it covers the core usage context adequately.
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?
The input schema already provides clear descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the default behavior (last 10 days) and implying the purpose of time range filtering, which goes slightly beyond the schema's basic 'only fetch after/before this date' text.
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 tool streams messages from a Discord channel, uses a specific verb ('streams') and resource ('Discord channel'), and adds distinctive details like time range filtering and default last 10 days. It differentiates from sibling tools like discord_read_messages by emphasizing streaming and progress updates.
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 through the term 'streams' but does not explicitly compare with alternatives like discord_read_messages or discord_search_messages. No exclusionary or conditional guidance is provided, making the 'when to use' context somewhat inferred rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the streaming behavior and the time range default, but does not clarify the return format, pagination, or explicitly state that it's a read-only operation. This limited disclosure is not misleading, but leaves gaps.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that packs the action, resource, and an important default without any redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete but leaves ambiguity around the term 'streams'—whether it returns all messages at once, paginates, or behaves differently. It also does not describe the return structure, which would help an agent know what to expect.
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?
The schema already documents all three parameters (100% coverage), giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining that time range filtering is a core feature and that the default is the last 10 days, which directly informs how afterDate and beforeDate work when omitted.
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 specifies the action ('Streams all messages') and the resource ('a single forum post/thread'), distinguishing it from siblings like discord_get_forum_post (which fetches the post) and discord_read_messages_stream (which reads messages more generally).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context through time range filtering and the default of last 10 days, implying when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or any 'when not to use' guidance, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-discord-stream MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Yv3s-y4ng/mcp-discord-stream/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Yv3s-y4ng/mcp-discord-stream)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-discord-stream MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Yv3s-y4ng/mcp-discord-stream/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Yv3s-y4ng/mcp-discord-stream)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Yv3s-y4ng/mcp-discord-stream'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server