mcp-discord-bridge

edit_role

Update a Discord role's name or color on a server. Optionally include an audit log reason.

Instructions

Edit an existing role's name or color

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>",
      "role_id": "<role_id>"
    },
    "name": "edit_role"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`guild_id`	Yes
`role_id`	Yes
`name`	No	New role name (optional)
`color`	No	New hex color (optional)
`reason`	No	Audit log reason (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedMay 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It only mentions editing name/color but omits any behavioral traits like permissions required (e.g., 'Manage Roles'), impact on other role properties, revertibility, or audit log usage. The reason parameter from the schema is not mentioned.

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?

A single sentence with no wordiness. However, it lacks structural elements like bullet points or grouping that could improve scannability for multiple parameters.

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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what happens when the tool succeeds, side effects, or error conditions, leaving the agent underinformed.

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?

The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions for name and color. It fails to mention required parameters (guild_id, role_id) or the optional reason parameter, even though schema already documents them. Schema coverage is 60%, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions for guild_id and role_id.

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 'Edit an existing role's name or color', specifying the verb (Edit) and resource (existing role) with exact fields that can be modified, effectively differentiating it from sibling tools like create_role, delete_role, or assign_role.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as assign_role or create_role. Lacks conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions despite having many closely related sibling tools.

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