discord-mcp

roles_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists all roles in a Discord guild, returning role IDs, colors, permissions, and hierarchy for auditing and discovery.

Instructions

Purpose: List all roles in a guild.

When to use: discover role IDs, audit hierarchy + permissions.

Example: {guild_id:"999000999000999000"}

Returns: {roles:[{id,name,color,position,permissions,mentionable,hoist,managed}], count}.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "guild_id": "<guild_id>"
    },
    "name": "roles_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`guild_id`	Yes	Guild to list roles for

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.22.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return structure but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination, permission requirements, or ordering. It adds moderate value beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise and well-structured with bolded labels for Purpose, When to use, Example, and Returns. Every sentence adds value and there is zero wasted text.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple read-only list tool with one required parameter and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it does, when to use it, an example call, and the return shape. Annotations cover safety, so nothing is missing.

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% for the single parameter guild_id, which is documented as 'Guild to list roles for'. The description provides an example JSON usage, but that does not add meaning beyond the schema's type and pattern. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'List all roles in a guild', using a specific verb and resource with clear scope ('all roles'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like roles_create, roles_modify, and roles_delete, which have different actions.

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?

Provides a dedicated 'When to use' section listing concrete use cases: discover role IDs, audit hierarchy + permissions. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, so it falls 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.

Deploy Server