discord-admin-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

audit_log

Retrieve recent Discord server audit log entries to track administrative actions, with optional filters by user or action type.

Instructions

Ãšltimas entradas do registro de auditoria.

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": {
      "guild_id": "<guild_id>"
    },
    "name": "audit_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`user_id`	No
`guild_id`	Yes
`action_type`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies recency ordering. It says nothing about required permissions, pagination behavior, whether an empty result is possible, or the fact that results are guild-scoped.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, so it is concise, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy. The encoding corruption also hurts presentation quality.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a four-parameter query tool with zero annotation coverage the definition leaves too much unspecified: filtering semantics, defaults, and permission requirements are all absent.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters (limit, user_id, guild_id, action_type), and the description adds no meaning for any of them. In particular the integer 'action_type' filter is completely opaque without enumeration values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Últimas entradas do registro de auditoria' identifies the resource (audit log) and implies a read of recent entries, which is enough to distinguish it from siblings like list_bans or read_messages. However, the verb is only implicit ('entradas'), and the text is rendered with mojibake ('Ãšltimas'), which degrades readability.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as needing audit-log permissions, and no statement about scope or exclusions. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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