discord-mcp

discord_whoami

Read-onlyIdempotent

Identifies the bot account this server runs as, confirming the token works and returning the bot's username, ID, and creation date to distinguish its messages.

Instructions

Identify the bot account this server is running as.

Use first to confirm the token works, and to learn the bot's own user ID (needed to
tell the bot's messages apart from other people's).

Returns: `Name (@username, ID) [bot]` plus the bot's creation date.
Errors: `Error: Invalid bot token…` if DISCORD_BOT_TOKEN is wrong or missing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

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

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the failure mode ('Error: Invalid bot token…' when DISCORD_BOT_TOKEN is wrong or missing), though the return-format sentence is largely redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

Three tight lines: purpose first, then usage, then returns/errors. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

For a 0-param, read-only identity probe with annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, correct timing, output shape, and the auth failure case. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate — the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. No syntax, defaults, or naming ambiguities exist to explain.

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+resource ('Identify the bot account this server is running as') with clear scope, and no sibling tool overlaps with it — the surrounding tools all operate on channels, messages, members, or roles.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says when to use it ('Use first to confirm the token works') and gives the downstream reason (the bot's own user ID is needed to distinguish the bot's messages from others'). This is actionable guidance an agent can act on without inference.

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