discord-mcp

discord_get_audit_log

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve Discord server audit log entries to identify who performed moderation actions like bans, kicks, deletions, or channel and role changes, and why.

Instructions

Read the server's audit log — who did what (bans, kicks, deletions, channel/role changes) and why.

Needs View Audit Log. Use to answer "who deleted that channel" or "why was X banned".

Returns: Markdown table (time, actor, action, target, reason) or JSON list of entries
{id, time, actor{id, username}, action, target_id, reason, changes}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`action`	No	Filter by action name, e.g. 'member_ban_add', 'message_delete', 'channel_create'.
`user_id`	No	Only actions performed by this user or bot.
`guild_id`	No	Server (guild) ID. Omit to use DISCORD_GUILD_ID from .env.
`response_format`	No	'markdown' for reading, 'json' for full structured data.	markdown

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive. The description adds the non-obvious prerequisite 'Needs View Audit Log', which is exactly the kind of auth context annotations cannot express. It doesn't mention rate limits or pagination, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then permission requirement, then use cases, then return shape, in four short lines with zero filler. Every sentence carries distinct information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers purpose, permission requirement, intent examples, and return shape (including both markdown and JSON field sets). With an output schema also present, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 80%, so the schema already documents action, user_id, guild_id, and response_format. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the server's audit log') and immediately enumerates its content scope (bans, kicks, deletions, channel/role changes). None of the many siblings cover audit log retrieval, so it is clearly distinguishable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete selection examples ('Use to answer "who deleted that channel" or "why was X banned"') that map to real agent intents. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-naming, which keeps it below a 5, but the intent routing is strong.

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