Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Discord Vencord MCP Bridge

Discord Vencord MCP Bridge

by clawdecode
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

discord_add_reaction

Add an emoji reaction to a Discord message by message ID, optionally specifying a channel ID that defaults to the active channel.

Instructions

Add an emoji reaction to a message.

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": {
      "message_id": "<message_id>",
      "emoji": "<emoji>"
    },
    "name": "discord_add_reaction"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emojiYesThe emoji character (e.g. 👍, 🔥, 🎉).
channel_idNoChannel ID (defaults to active).
message_idYesThe ID of the target message.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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 behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about required permissions, what happens when the emoji is already present (no-op vs error), rate limits, or what is returned. For a mutation tool this is a substantial 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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The brevity is appropriate, though it reflects thin content rather than dense, high-value phrasing.

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 three-parameter write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits permissions, failure modes, and result expectations. The schema compensates for parameter meaning, but behavioral context 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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds no explanation of message_id, emoji format, or the optional channel_id beyond what the schema already states.

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?

'Add an emoji reaction to a message' states a specific verb and resource, and the 'add' wording implicitly contrasts with the sibling discord_remove_reaction. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the inverse pairing.

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 conditions for when to use this versus alternatives such as discord_remove_reaction or discord_send_message, and no prerequisites (e.g. needing message access). Usage is only implied by the verb.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools