Discord MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get information', implying a read-only operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what specific information is returned (e.g., channel name, type, permissions). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'Get information about a Discord channel'. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness, such as hinting at the type of information retrieved.

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

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

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what information is returned (e.g., channel details like name or type), any dependencies, or error cases. For a read operation with no structured output, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'channelId' documented as 'The Discord channel ID'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the tool's purpose as 'Get information about a Discord channel', which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('Discord channel'), but does not distinguish it from siblings like 'discord_get_message' or 'discord_get_dm_channels' in terms of what specific information is retrieved. It avoids tautology by not merely restating the name.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, such as when to use it over 'discord_get_dm_channels' for direct messages or 'discord_get_message' for message details. This lack of usage context leaves the agent without direction.

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