Skip to main content
Glama
Guildora
by az-xx

List roles

list_roles
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists Discord server roles from highest to lowest with IDs, positions, colors, flags, and key permissions, marking the bot's highest role to show which roles it can manage.

Instructions

Lists server roles from highest to lowest with ID, position, color, flags and notable permissions. Marks the bot's highest role: the bot can only manage roles below it.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_roles"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
guildNoServer ID or name. Optional if DISCORD_GUILD_ID is set or the bot is in one server.
limitNoMax items to return (1-250, default 100).
queryNoOnly roles whose name contains this text.
cursorNoThe next_cursor value from a previous call.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world. The description adds real value beyond them: sort order, that the bot's highest role is marked, and the hierarchy constraint limiting which roles the bot can manage. It stops short of describing pagination behavior for the cursor.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return contents, followed by the operational constraint. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, in what order, and the key hierarchy caveat. Minor gap: nothing on how paging works with cursor/limit or typical result volume.

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 guild, limit, query and cursor are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists server roles'), plus ordering ('highest to lowest') and the returned fields (ID, position, color, flags, notable permissions). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling list tools like list_channels and list_members.

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 is only implied by the fact it's a listing tool; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance relative to alternatives. The one useful constraint offered is that the bot can only manage roles below its highest role, which informs downstream role-management decisions but isn't routing guidance.

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