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 mentions the action ('Remove' or 'cancel') but does not specify permissions required, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or response behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, using only six words to convey the core action. Every word earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions, reversibility, and response format, which are crucial for safe and effective use. The high schema coverage helps with parameters but does not compensate for the overall gaps.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'userId' clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Remove' or 'cancel') and the resource ('a friend' or 'a friend request'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes between removing an existing friend and canceling a pending request, which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'discord_get_friends' beyond the obvious action difference, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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, such as when to remove a friend versus canceling a request, or prerequisites like needing the user ID. It lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving usage unclear beyond the basic action stated.

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