discord-mcp

skus_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List SKUs for a Discord application by providing its application ID, returning premium offerings with IDs, types, names, slugs, and flags.

Instructions

Purpose: List your application's SKUs (premium offerings).

Returns: {skus:[{id, type, name, slug, flags}], 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": {
      "application_id": "<application_id>"
    },
    "name": "skus_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`application_id`	Yes	Your application/bot ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.22.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return structure (skus array with fields and count), but does not mention pagination, filtering, or any rate limits. This is reasonable for a simple list tool, but the additional context is limited.

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 with two clear sections: Purpose and Returns. Every sentence adds value, and the key information is front-loaded. No unnecessary words.

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 simplicity (one parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns. The main missing element is usage context, but that is not critical for such a straightforward read-only listing operation. Could be improved by noting openWorld semantics, but it is already adequate.

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 coverage is 100%: the only parameter (application_id) has a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'your application's SKUs (premium offerings)'. This clearly distinguishes it from related pricing/entitlement tools and makes the operation 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 such as entitlements_list or subscriptions_list. The description only states what it does, not when it should be preferred, nor any exclusions.

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

Deploy Server