discord-server-mcp

list_members

Read-only

Lists Discord server members and their roles, optionally filtered by role. Enable the Server Members Intent in the Developer Portal so the bot can return member data.

Instructions

List server members with their roles. Needs the Server Members Intent enabled for the bot in the Developer Portal (Bot tab).

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": "list_members"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bot`	No	Use this bot (name or id) instead of choosing automatically
`role`	No	Only members with this role
`limit`	No
`server`	No	Server name or id. Optional when the bot is in one server or DISCORD_GUILD_ID is set.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations do not: the call fails unless the Server Members Intent is enabled in the Developer Portal, which is exactly the kind of failure-mode context an agent needs. It stops short of explaining pagination or what happens when the member list is large.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the purpose comes first, then the prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is buried.

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?

For a four-parameter read tool with 75% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the one blocking prerequisite. The remaining gap is that limit/pagination behavior and how results are ordered or capped are not addressed anywhere.

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 75%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema and a 3 is the baseline. The description mentions the returned role data but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema says for bot, role, limit, and server.

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?

"List server members with their roles" gives a specific verb and resource plus the shape of the result, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as get_member or list_roles, which keeps it from a 5.

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 by the verb 'list' and the tool's scope is clear, but there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over get_member (single lookup) or list_roles. The only conditional guidance is the intent prerequisite, which is operational rather than selection guidance.

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