Discord Bridge MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states the tool replies to messages, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions required, rate limits, whether replies are editable/deletable, or how failures are handled. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal brevity for the given information.

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 complexity of a Discord reply operation (a mutation with potential side effects), the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to address key contextual elements like error handling, response format, or integration with sibling tools. The agent lacks sufficient information to use this tool effectively in real-world scenarios.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three required parameters (message_id, channel, message). The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides—it doesn't explain format details, constraints, or examples. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Reply to') and resource ('a specific Discord message'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'discord_send' or 'discord_react' which also involve message interactions, missing the opportunity to clarify its specific role in the Discord toolset.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'discord_reply' over 'discord_send' (for new messages) or 'discord_react' (for reactions), nor does it specify prerequisites like needing message and channel IDs. This lack of context leaves the agent to guess about appropriate usage scenarios.

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