Fetch messages from a specified Discord channel, DM, or group DM by displaying it in the client. Use it to read the currently loaded visible conversation when full server-side history isn't required.
Read a known channel, DM or group DM. Only the client-loaded message window is available; this can move the Discord view. It is not full history or server-side search.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses important side effects and limitations beyond the annotations: it can move the Discord view, only the client-loaded message window is available, and it is not full history or server-side search. This is valuable context given that readOnlyHint is false and idempotentHint is false.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds essential information. There is no filler or repetition of schema/annotation data.
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?
Given the single parameter, no output schema, and the annotations already provided, the description covers purpose, scope, side effects, and limitations. An agent has enough information to decide when to call it and what to expect from the call.
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%, so the description must compensate. It does convey that the single parameter identifies a known channel, DM, or group DM, but it doesn't elaborate on how channel_id maps to those resource types or add meaningful detail beyond the schema's name and pattern.
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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('a known channel, DM or group DM'), and key scoping details. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_channels, get_guild, and get_selected_voice_channel without needing to open schemas.
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 clearly indicates this tool is for reading an already-known channel/DM/group DM, not for searching or retrieving full history. It explicitly says it is not server-side search, which helps an agent avoid misusing it, though it doesn't name an alternative tool for full-history search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.