discord-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Send a message' implies a write operation that likely requires webhook credentials, but the description doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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

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

The description is extremely concise at just 5 words, which is efficient for conveying the basic purpose. However, it's arguably too brief given the tool's complexity and lack of annotations - a slightly more informative description could better serve the agent without becoming verbose. The single sentence structure is clear but minimal.

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

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

For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a webhook is, what format the message takes, what happens after sending, or how this differs from regular messaging. The agent would need to infer too much from the sparse description and schema alone.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the general concept of sending a webhook message. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't provide additional context about parameter relationships or usage patterns.

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

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

The description 'Send a message using a webhook' clearly states the action (send) and resource (message via webhook), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'send_message' or 'create_webhook', which could cause confusion about when to use each. The purpose is clear but lacks differentiation from related functionality.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'send_message' (regular message sending) and 'create_webhook' (webhook creation), the agent has no indication whether this is for webhook-based messaging specifically versus other messaging methods. There's no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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