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. The description mentions 'search' and 'filters' but doesn't clarify key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), rate limits, or error conditions. For a search tool with 9 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does ('Search for messages in a Discord channel') and adds key context ('with text query and filters') in a compact form. Every part of the sentence contributes meaning.

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 (9 parameters, search functionality) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or behavioral constraints like rate limits or permissions. For a search tool in a messaging context, more detail on results and usage boundaries is needed to be complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'text query and filters', which aligns with parameters like 'query', 'authorId', and date filters. However, it doesn't provide additional context, examples, or clarification on parameter interactions, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search for messages in a Discord channel with text query and filters'. It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('messages in a Discord channel'), and scope ('with text query and filters'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'discord_get_message_history' which might also retrieve messages, though the filtering aspect provides some implicit distinction.

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 sibling tools like 'discord_get_message_history' or 'discord_get_message', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage scenarios. The agent must infer usage based on the name and description alone.

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