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 describes what the tool does but doesn't cover key aspects like whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error handling, or the format of the output (though output schema exists). This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by a structured 'Args' section with bullet points. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information 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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like read-only nature or error cases, which are not fully covered by the output schema alone.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that the 'operation' parameter is an identifier and provides concrete examples (e.g., 'messages.send', 'batch.category.action'), clarifying its semantics. This compensates well for the schema's lack of details, though it doesn't cover all possible edge cases or formats.

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: 'Get detailed parameter schema for a specific operation.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('parameter schema'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'discord_discover' or 'discord_execute', which might also involve schema-related operations, preventing 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 implies usage by mentioning 'specific operation' and providing examples of operation identifiers, suggesting it should be used when schema details are needed. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'discord_discover' (which might list operations) or 'discord_execute' (which might use the schema), leaving the context somewhat vague.

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