Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
discord-admin-mcp

discord-admin-mcp

by pedroaop
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

edit_role

Modify a Discord role's name, color, hoist, mentionable status, or permissions in a guild, with an optional reason recorded in the audit log.

Instructions

Edita um cargo.

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>",
      "role_id": "<role_id>"
    },
    "name": "edit_role"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
colorNo
hoistNo
reasonNo
role_idYes
guild_idYes
mentionableNo
permissionsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

D1.5/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure and provides none. It does not say whether omitted fields are left unchanged, that a reason is written to the audit log, that permissions are supplied as a bitfield string, or what the response contains.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The single sentence is short but that is under-specification rather than conciseness; there is no front-loaded scope, no parameter notes, and nothing that earns its place beyond naming the resource.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For an 8-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, the definition is wholly inadequate. An agent cannot determine partial-update semantics, permission requirements, or value formats for any optional field.

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 8 parameters, and the description mentions none of them. Undocumented fields like permissions (bitfield string?), color (integer encoding?), hoist, mentionable, and reason receive no clarification in either the schema or the description.

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

Purpose2/5

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

"Edita um cargo" restates the tool name edit_role almost verbatim, adding no specificity about what aspect of the role is edited or the scope of the operation. It does signal a mutation of an existing role rather than creation or deletion, but that distinction is already carried by the name.

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 siblings such as create_role, delete_role, add_role, or remove_role, nor on prerequisites like holding Manage Roles permission. The only implied usage is the generic 'edit an existing role', which the agent must infer.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools