Discord Bridge MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'send a message' implies a write operation, it doesn't address important behavioral aspects like permission requirements (e.g., does the bot need specific channel permissions?), rate limits, whether messages can be edited/deleted later, or what happens on failure. The description is minimal and lacks behavioral context.

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 purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information immediately.

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?

For a write operation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what happens after sending (success/failure indicators), doesn't mention any constraints or requirements, and provides minimal context for a tool that performs a potentially complex operation in a chat platform with permission systems and rate limiting.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'message' and 'channel' generically but provides no additional context about format constraints, channel resolution logic, or message formatting options.

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 verb ('send') and resource ('message to a Discord channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like discord_reply (which also sends messages but as replies) or discord_react (which interacts with messages differently).

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like discord_reply (for replying to existing messages) or discord_react (for adding reactions). The description only states what the tool does, not when it's appropriate compared to other messaging-related tools in the sibling set.

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