mcp-discord-bridge

create_channel

Add a text or voice channel to a Discord server, optionally placing it inside a category.

Instructions

Create a text or voice channel, optionally inside a category

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": {
      "guild_id": "<guild_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_channel"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`guild_id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`type`	No		text
`category_id`	No	Parent category ID (optional)
`topic`	No	Channel topic (text channels only, optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedMay 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits such as permission requirements, uniqueness constraints on name, or whether creation is immediate. Lacks details on side effects or rate limits.

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, efficient sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and clearly communicates the core purpose without any filler.

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?

Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description is adequate for a simple creation tool but misses details like confirmation of success, uniqueness constraints, and explicit differentiation between text and voice channel options (e.g., topic only for text).

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 coverage is 40% (only category_id and topic have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining that type can be 'text' or 'voice' and that category_id is optional. However, it does not clarify guild_id or name semantics, nor the fact that topic is only for text channels.

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 'Create' and the resource 'channel', specifying text or voice types and optional category. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_category (creates categories) and create_thread (creates threads).

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 creating regular channels but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like create_category or create_forum_post. No exclusions or context for when not to use this tool.

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