mcp-discord-bridge

reply_to_forum_post

Reply to an existing forum post by providing the thread ID and reply content. Ensures your response is added to the correct discussion thread.

Instructions

Reply to an existing forum post

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": {
      "thread_id": "<thread_id>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "reply_to_forum_post"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`thread_id`	Yes	Forum post (thread) ID
`content`	Yes	Reply content (max 2000 chars)

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 provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as modification side effects, permission requirements, or whether the reply bumps the thread.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key information, no unnecessary words.

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?

Adequate for a simple tool but lacks explanation of return values or usage context; could be improved with more details given the presence of many sibling tools.

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 100% and already describes both parameters; the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's documentation.

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 (Reply) and the resource (existing forum post), distinguishing it from siblings like create_forum_post and delete_forum_post.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the purpose is implied but no differentiation from similar sibling tools is provided.

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