Skip to main content
Glama
elyxlz

Discord MCP Server

by elyxlz

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.
  • Latest release: v0.2.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: servers list, channels list, messages read, messages send. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_servers, get_channels, read_messages, send_message). The verbs are specific and the nouns clearly indicate the target resource.

    Tool Count5/5

    Four tools is an ideal size for a focused Discord server. Each tool covers a necessary step in the interaction flow without redundancy or bloat.

    Completeness4/5

    The surface covers the core read/send workflow well: discover servers, discover channels, read messages, send messages. Missing edit/delete operations are a minor gap, but the primary use case is fully supported.

  • Average 3.6/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available
  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
      "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
      "maintainers": [
        "your-github-username"
      ]
    }

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one behavioral trait: long messages are automatically split. However, it omits other important behaviors such as permission requirements, error handling, or whether sending is permanent/destructive. This is partial transparency.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is two sentences, with the main action front-loaded and the behavioral note appended. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too minimal. It lacks guidance on usage, parameter semantics, and return behavior. The auto-split detail is useful but insufficient for reliable invocation.

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

    Parameters2/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the server_id, channel_id, or content parameters beyond their names. The auto-split note implicitly relates to content but doesn't specify format or limits. The description adds no value over the schema's basic names/types.

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

    Purpose5/5

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

    The description uses the specific verb 'send' with the resource 'message to a specific Discord channel', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_servers, get_channels, and read_messages. It immediately conveys the tool's core action and target.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

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

    No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention read_messages for reading, nor does it explain any preconditions like needing server/channel IDs. The description simply states the action without usage context or exclusions.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the obvious action 'List' without mentioning permissions, rate limits, whether private channels are included, or any other behavioral details. This is a minimal transparency gap for a read-only operation.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the essential purpose clearly.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    For a simple list tool, the description is adequate but not complete. Since there is no output schema, it does not hint at the return format (e.g., channel names, objects, metadata). This is a gap, though not severe for a basic listing operation.

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

    Parameters2/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 0% (server_id has no description). The phrase 'in a specific Discord server' adds some context for the parameter but does not explain the ID format, how to obtain it, or any constraints. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter details.

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

    Purpose5/5

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

    The description clearly states the tool's action ('List all channels') and its scope ('in a specific Discord server'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_servers, read_messages, and send_message.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The description implies that a server_id is required but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives or how to obtain the server_id (e.g., via get_servers). Usage context is only inferred.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying safety. The word 'read' implies a non-destructive operation. However, it does not disclose details like time window behavior, ordering, or pagination limits, which are left to parameter names and defaults.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It succinctly conveys the core function without repetition or unnecessary detail, making it easy to parse.

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

    Completeness2/5

    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 too sparse. It omits any mention of return format, the meaning of 'recent' (hours_back), or the need to first retrieve server/channel IDs via sibling tools. This leaves important gaps for safe and correct invocation.

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

    Parameters2/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters. 'Recent' hints at hours_back, but it does not clarify the meaning of server_id, channel_id, or max_messages, or how they interact. The agent must infer from parameter names alone.

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

    Purpose5/5

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

    The description clearly states the action ('read'), the resource ('recent messages'), and the scope ('from a specific channel'). It effectively distinguishes this from siblings like get_servers and get_channels (which list resources) and send_message (which writes).

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The description implies that this tool is used to read messages in a channel, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention prerequisites (e.g., needing server_id and channel_id from get_servers/get_channels). Usage context is present but not elaborated.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that it lists servers the user has access to, which conveys a read-only, access-limited behavior. However, it does not disclose any details about pagination, sorting, or the structure of the returned data.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is no unnecessary information, making it highly efficient.

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

    Completeness4/5

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

    For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and scope. However, it does not describe the return format or fields, which might be useful for an agent to consume the results, but given the simplicity, this is a minor gap.

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

    Parameters4/5

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

    The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description correctly indicates that no parameters are needed by simply stating the operation.

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

    Purpose5/5

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

    The description uses the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource as 'Discord servers (guilds)' with the scope 'you have access to'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_channels, which list channels.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    The description implies usage for retrieving accessible Discord servers but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_channels or read_messages. There is no 'when to use' or 'use this instead of' guidance, only the intrinsic purpose.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

discord-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

discord-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/elyxlz/discord-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server