Creates a Discord thread in a specified channel, optionally from an existing message, to organize focused conversations.
Create a Discord thread.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| message | No | ||
| bot_token | No | Bot token. Optional when connected in UnClick or the documented env var is set. | |
| channel_id | Yes | ||
| message_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Input schema / properties / bot_token / descriptionAdded value: +"Bot token. Optional when connected in UnClick or the documented env var is set."Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "bot_token",
- "channel_id",
- "name"
-]New value: +[
+ "channel_id",
+ "name"
+]v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and adds almost nothing. "Create" implies a mutation, but it does not state required bot permissions, whether the bot must already be in the channel, whether the thread can be removed, or whether it needs a parent message.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than compression of useful content.
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?
A five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two distinct thread-creation modes is described in four words. Nothing tells the agent the operational preconditions or expected result, which is plainly inadequate for this complexity.
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 coverage is only 20% (only bot_token is documented), and the description adds no meaning to name, channel_id, message, or message_id. The critical ambiguity between `message` (initial content) and `message_id` (start the thread from an existing message) is left entirely unresolved.
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 gives a clear verb and resource ("Create a Discord thread"), so an agent can tell it apart from generic read/write tools. However, it does not differentiate from siblings such as discord_send or discord_read, and does not specify whether the thread is public, private, or forum-based.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives are named despite close siblings like discord_send and discord_channels existing. The agent must infer that thread creation is a distinct step from posting a message.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.