Discord MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination, return format, or error conditions. 'Get list' suggests a read-only operation, but this isn't explicitly confirmed, leaving gaps in transparency for a tool that likely interacts with user data.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying DM channels and the current user scope.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns structured data. It doesn't explain what the list contains (e.g., channel IDs, names, metadata), how results are formatted, or any limitations. For a read operation in a complex API like Discord, more context is needed to use it 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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately omits parameter details, focusing on the tool's purpose. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('list of DM channels for the current user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like discord_get_channel (general channel) and discord_get_friends (friends list), though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The description avoids tautology by specifying the resource type and scope.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication state), compare to discord_create_dm (for creating new DMs) or discord_get_message_history (for message content), or specify scenarios where this tool is appropriate. Usage is implied but not articulated.

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