discord-admin-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_invites

List all active invites for a Discord server using its guild ID, so you can audit existing invite links and their current status before managing or revoking them.

Instructions

Lista convites ativos.

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": "list_invites"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`guild_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and provides almost nothing: no indication of required permissions, whether expired invites are excluded (only implied by "ativos"), pagination, or ordering. The single word "ativos" is the only behavioral signal, and it is ambiguous.

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. It is also written in a different language from the tool name and sibling tools, which adds minor friction.

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 explained, but for a tool with a required identifier and zero annotation coverage the description is inadequate. It omits the guild scoping, permission expectations, and any notion of what counts as an active invite.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the sole required parameter, guild_id, is never mentioned in the description. The agent must infer that invites are scoped to a guild and that the ID is required, with no format or sourcing hints from the text.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a clear verb and resource ("Lista convites ativos" = list active invites), which is specific enough for an agent to know it retrieves invites rather than creating or deleting them. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like create_invite or delete_invite, nor does it clarify the meaning of "active" (unexpired, non-revoked, etc.).

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 create_invite, delete_invite, or other listing tools. No prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of permission requirements for viewing invites are given.

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