mcp-discord-bridge

send_webhook_message

Send a message to a Discord channel using a webhook, with optional custom display name.

Instructions

Send a message via a webhook

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>",
      "webhook_id": "<webhook_id>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "send_webhook_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`channel_id`	Yes
`webhook_id`	Yes
`content`	Yes	Message content (max 2000 chars)
`username`	No	Override the webhook display name (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedMay 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Send a message', which implies mutation but does not discuss error handling, authentication, rate limits, or idempotency.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary details for a tool with multiple parameters. It earns its place but could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return behavior, error scenarios, or prerequisites like having a valid webhook.

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?

Schema coverage is 50% (2 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The description adds no extra meaning; it does not explain channel_id or webhook_id. It relies solely on the schema, which is insufficient for understanding required inputs.

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 clearly states the verb 'Send' and resource 'message via a webhook', which distinguishes it from sending regular messages. However, it does not further differentiate from sibling tools like send_dm or create_webhook.

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. For example, there is no mention that webhook messages are for external integrations or that send_message is for direct channel messages.

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