Skip to main content
Glama
Discord Vencord MCP Bridge

Discord Vencord MCP Bridge

by clawdecode

discord_create_role

Creates a new Discord server role with configurable name, color, hoist, mentionability, and permissions; requires MANAGE_ROLES permission.

Instructions

Create a new role in a server (requires MANAGE_ROLES permission).

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": "discord_create_role"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoRole name.
colorNoRGB integer color (e.g. 0xFF0000 for red).
hoistNoDisplay role separately in member list.
guild_idNoServer ID (defaults to active server).
mentionableNoAllow anyone to @mention this role.
permissionsNoBitwise permission flag string.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
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 usefully discloses the MANAGE_ROLES permission requirement, which the agent could not otherwise know, but it is silent on what the new role's default state is (permissions, position, mentionability) and what is returned.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the permission constraint in parentheses. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential auth prerequisite and the schema covers every field. The only gap is not stating the result (e.g. the created role's ID), a minor omission given no output schema exists to document it.

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 all six parameters already have their own descriptions including the color example and the guild_id default. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the baseline expectation when the schema is complete.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ('Create a new role in a server') leaves no ambiguity about the operation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as discord_modify_role or discord_assign_role, but the name/description combination is clear enough to separate creation from mutation or assignment.

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 states a permission prerequisite but gives no guidance on when to choose this over discord_modify_role, and no exclusion or alternative is named. An agent must infer from the tool name that this is for new roles only.

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