discord-server-mcp

setup_check

Read-only

Lists configured Discord bots, their servers, invite links, and required fixes for permissions, role position, or intents; guides bot creation when none exist.

Instructions

Start here. Shows every configured bot with the servers it is in, what to fix (permissions, role position, intents), invite links, and this tool's settings. With no bot yet it gives the steps to create one.

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": "setup_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, non-destructive operation, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral content: the response is a diagnostic overview with remediation hints and invite links, and the output shape changes entirely when no bot exists, which an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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?

Two short sentences with the most important instruction ('Start here') front-loaded and no filler. The phrase 'this tool's settings' is slightly ambiguous about whose settings are returned, a minor imprecision in an otherwise tight definition.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates what the agent gets back: bots with servers, remediation items, invite links, settings, and onboarding steps. Combined with a zero-parameter read-only signature, nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming it needs no input to run. A 4 is the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a concrete verb and output set: shows configured bots, their servers, what to fix (permissions, role position, intents), invite links and tool settings. The leading 'Start here' plus the aggregate nature of the output distinguishes it from narrower siblings like list_bots and check_permissions, which an agent could otherwise confuse it with.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'Start here' is explicit entry-point guidance, and the no-bot fallback ('gives the steps to create one') tells the agent this also serves as onboarding. It does not explicitly say when to skip it in favor of list_bots or check_permissions, so the exclusion side is left implicit.

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