discord-server-mcp

edit_server

Update Discord server settings, including name, description, icon, banner, verification level, notifications, content filter, AFK, and system or rules channels.

Instructions

Change server settings: name, description, icon, banner, splash, verification level, default notifications, content filter, AFK, system and rules channels.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "edit_server"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bot`	No	Use this bot (name or id) instead of choosing automatically
`icon`	No	Image path or URL, or "none" to remove
`name`	No
`banner`	No	Image path or URL (needs boost level 2), or "none"
`reason`	No	Reason shown in the server's audit log
`server`	No	Server name or id. Optional when the bot is in one server or DISCORD_GUILD_ID is set.
`splash`	No	Invite background image path or URL (needs boost level 1), or "none"
`dry_run`	No	Show the requests that would be made without changing anything
`community`	No	Turn Community on (needs rules_channel and public_updates_channel; raises verification to low and the content filter to all members if lower). Unlocks onboarding, welcome screen, announcement channels and forums insights
`afk_channel`	No	Voice channel, or "none"
`description`	No	Only for Community servers
`join_messages`	No	Discord's own welcome message in the system channel when someone joins
`rules_channel`	No	Community servers only
`content_filter`	No
`system_channel`	No	Channel for join messages, or "none"
`verification_level`	No
`afk_timeout_seconds`	No
`default_notifications`	No
`public_updates_channel`	No	Community servers only

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The sole annotation is readOnlyHint=false, so the description must carry the behavioral burden for a 19-parameter mutation. It does not say whether this is a partial update (unmentioned fields preserved), what permissions are required, that boost levels gate banner/splash, or that dry_run exists for previewing. Only the schema's per-parameter text covers any of that, and the description contributes nothing beyond naming fields.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One front-loaded sentence with a verb, resource and field list, and no filler. The comma-separated list is dense but scannable; a small deduction for mixing differently-shaped items ('AFK', 'system and rules channels') that are less precise than the schema names.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 19-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the common cosmetic fields but is silent on the higher-consequence options (community, public_updates_channel, join_messages) and on the safe-preview path (dry_run). Combined with the 74% schema coverage the agent can still call it, but the description does not fully prepare it for the risky branches.

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 description coverage is 74%, so the schema already documents most parameters including boost requirements, 'none' removal syntax and Community prerequisites. The description mirrors a subset of those field names (icon, banner, splash, verification, content filter, AFK, channels) without adding format or behavior detail, and omits community, join_messages, dry_run, afk_timeout_seconds, reason, bot and server. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Change') and resource ('server settings'), then enumerates the settings it touches (name, icon, banner, splash, verification level, content filter, AFK, channels). This clearly separates it from siblings like edit_channel, edit_role and edit_message, which operate on different resources. It stops short of 5 only because the enumeration is partial and inconsistent with the 19-parameter surface.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (Manage Server permission, boost levels for banner/splash), and no routing to alternatives such as configure or apply_blueprint. The only cue is the implied 'server-level settings', which an agent must infer.

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