discord-server-mcp

list_roles

Read-only

List Discord roles from top to bottom with color, permissions, and member count hints to review server hierarchy and role details.

Instructions

List roles (top to bottom) with colour, permissions and member count hints.

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_roles"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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.

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 safety is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the ordering (top to bottom) and the shape of the returned data (colour, permissions, member count hints), but says nothing about permission requirements, rate limits, or what "hints" actually means.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource before the ordering and return-content details. Nothing needs trimming and nothing important 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 zero-required-parameter read tool with full annotation and schema coverage, this is nearly complete: it says what is listed, in what order, and roughly what comes back. The only remaining gap is clarifying what the "member count hints" and colour values look like, which is minor without an output schema.

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 100% and both parameters (bot, server) are documented there, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no meaning about bot selection or server scoping that the schema does not already carry.

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 and resource ("List roles") and adds distinguishing scope: ordering is top-to-bottom, and the response carries colour, permissions and member count. It clearly separates itself from write-side siblings like create_role/edit_role/delete_role, though it never names an alternative reader.

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 only implied by the read-only verb; there is no statement of when to prefer this over list_members, check_permissions, or get_server, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. An agent can infer it is the survey tool for roles but gets no explicit routing rule.

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