discord-server-mcp

get_message

Read-only

Reads one Discord message in full, including content, embeds, files, and reactions, using the channel and message ID.

Instructions

Read one message in full (content, embeds, files, reactions).

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": {
      "channel": "<channel>",
      "message_id": "<message_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_message"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bot`	No	Use this bot (name or id) instead of choosing automatically
`server`	No	Server name or id. Optional when the bot is in one server or DISCORD_GUILD_ID is set.
`channel`	Yes	Channel or thread name, id, or message link
`message_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating the returned facets (embeds, files, reactions), but says nothing about permissions needed to read a channel, behavior for deleted or inaccessible messages, or message-reference formats.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and its return contents; no filler or redundant restatement of the name.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by listing what the response contains, which is the main thing an agent needs for this simple read tool. Minor gaps remain around message_id format and channel-access prerequisites.

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 coverage is 75%, so most parameters are already self-documented; only message_id lacks a schema description, and the description does not clarify its accepted format (id vs. message link) even though the channel parameter mentions links. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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?

"Read one message" states a specific verb and single-resource scope, and the parenthetical enumerates exactly what is returned (content, embeds, files, reactions). It is clearly distinguishable from the mutation sibling edit_message, though it does not explicitly name a contrast tool.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied: fetch the full detail of a single message. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of alternatives, and no note about when a message link is a valid input path versus an explicit channel plus id.

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