Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
discord-mcp

discord-mcp

by founderie-labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Send message

discord_send_message

Post a message or reply in a Discord channel, thread, or forum post, splitting long text and adding optional embeds without pinging @everyone or roles.

Instructions

Post a message in a text channel, thread or forum post (as a reply in the post). Long text is split into several messages (max 8,000 characters). Optional embed for a formatted card. Mentions never ping @everyone or roles.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "channel_id": "<channel_id>"
    },
    "name": "discord_send_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
embedNoA formatted card (title, description, colour bar, fields)
contentNo
channel_idYesChannel, thread or forum post ID
reply_to_message_idNoReply to this message

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses real behavioral traits: automatic splitting of long text into multiple messages with an 8,000-character ceiling, embeds rendering as a formatted card, and the safety guarantee that mentions never ping @everyone or roles. It stops short of noting rate limits, required permissions, or what the truncation/split does to a single logical message.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded, then size/embed behavior, then the mention-safety caveat. No filler, though the terse telegrams style ('Optional embed for a formatted card') reads clipped rather than polished.

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?

With no output schema, the description should carry behavior, and it does cover splitting, embeds, and mention safety for a 4-parameter write tool with a nested embed object whose structure is already in the schema. Gaps are secondary: no return value (e.g., created message ID), no permission prerequisites, no error behavior for invalid channel IDs.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 75% and the embed object is well documented in the schema, so the schema carries most of the load. The description adds some meaning — 'as a reply in the post' clarifies target semantics for forum posts, and the 8,000-char limit contextualizes the content parameter — but it does not explain reply_to_message_id beyond what the schema already says.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Post a message in a text channel, thread or forum post') and scopes the target surface precisely, including the nuance that forum posts are replied to rather than posted in. It does not name or contrast with the obvious siblings (discord_edit_message, discord_admin_manage_message), so an agent must infer the distinction from verb alone.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'Post' — use this to create a new message rather than to modify an existing one. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer reply_to_message_id versus a top-level post, and no prerequisites (permissions, channel types) are given.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools