List forum posts in a Discord channel, showing active discussions first. Filter by limit and include archived posts to manage or review forum content.
List posts in a forum channel, active first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| forum_id | Yes | ||
| include_archived | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions only 'active first' as a sorting behavior, but does not explain what 'active' means, that archived posts are excluded by default (include_archived=false), or any pagination or limit behavior. This is insufficient for a tool that has an output schema and multiple parameters.
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 a single concise sentence, which is appropriately short. However, it is so brief that it omits critical information, making it under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It earns a middle score because it is not verbose, but it does not contain enough substance to be highly effective.
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?
The tool has three parameters (one required) and an output schema, so it is moderately complex. The description does not address default behaviors, filtering options, or what 'active' means, and it leaves the agent without guidance on pagination or how archived posts are handled. While the output schema covers return format, the description still lacks essential context for correct invocation.
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 0% – the description does not mention any parameters. It fails to explain the meaning or use of limit, forum_id, or include_archived, leaving the agent to rely solely on the raw schema. With no parameter descriptions in the tool description, it provides zero added semantic value.
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 clearly states the action (list posts), the resource (posts), and the scope (in a forum channel), and specifies the ordering (active first). This distinguishes it from siblings like read_post (single post) and list_tags (tags), though it does not explicitly name an alternative. The purpose is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_post for a single post or create_post for posting. The description only states what it does, not when it should be chosen. This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.