Discord MCP

Abrir DM

open_dm

Idempotent

Opens or reopens a direct message channel with a Discord user and returns the channelId needed for reading or sending messages, without sending anything.

Instructions

Abre (ou reabre) a conversa direta com um usuario e devolve o channelId para read_messages/send_message. Nao envia nada.

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": {
      "userId": "<userId>"
    },
    "name": "open_dm"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`format`	No	text (padrao) devolve texto compacto; json devolve o objeto bruto.
`userId`	Yes	Usuario (id numerico do Discord).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, readOnlyHint=false. The description reinforces the non-destructive nature with 'Nao envia nada' and the idempotency with 'abre (ou reabre)', adding useful context beyond the structured flags. It doesn't mention auth or rate limits.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action, then the return value, then the clarifying constraint. Nothing is wasted.

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 simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, non-effect, and the return value (channelId) that the agent needs downstream. Nothing essential 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 100%, so both the userId pattern and the format enum are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (abre/reabre) and resource (conversa direta) and explicitly clarifies the negative scope with 'Nao envia nada', separating it from send_message. The agent knows exactly what it does and what it does not do.

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?

Explains the tool returns the channelId needed by read_messages/send_message, which clearly implies when to reach for it (before reading or sending in a DM). It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or a named alternative for pre-existing channels, but the context is unambiguous.

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