Discord MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Send' implies a write operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this requires specific Discord permissions, rate limits, message length constraints, formatting options, or what happens on failure. It mentions nothing about the response format or side effects.

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 perfectly concise at just 7 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every element ('Send', 'text message', 'Discord channel') earns its place by contributing to understanding the tool's purpose without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, authentication requirements, or operational constraints. While the purpose is clear, the lack of behavioral and output information leaves significant gaps for an AI agent trying to use this tool 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 both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain channel_id format requirements, message content restrictions, or provide examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation coming entirely from the schema.

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 ('Send a text message') and target resource ('to a Discord channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like discord_send_file by specifying 'text message' rather than file attachment. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with discord_get_messages or other siblings beyond the verb difference.

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 when to choose discord_send_message over discord_send_file for different content types, or how it relates to the get_messages tools. There's no information about prerequisites, permissions needed, or contextual constraints for sending messages.

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