Discord MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific Discord resources and actions, such as add_reaction vs. remove_reaction or create_text_channel vs. delete_channel. There is no significant overlap that would cause confusion in tool selection, as descriptions precisely define the scope of each operation.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as create_role, list_members, and update_channel. All tools use snake_case with clear, descriptive verbs, making the naming scheme predictable and easy to understand across the entire set.
Tool Count4/5
With 33 tools, the count is slightly high but reasonable for a comprehensive Discord server management system, covering channels, roles, members, messages, and moderation. It feels slightly heavy but not excessive, as each tool serves a specific function in the domain.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete CRUD and lifecycle coverage for Discord server management, including creation, retrieval, updating, and deletion of channels, roles, and messages, along with moderation actions like ban, kick, and timeout. No obvious gaps exist for the intended purpose, ensuring agents can handle typical workflows without dead ends.
Average 2.9/5 across 33 of 33 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
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. While 'update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified settings, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with 10 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description, though it could benefit from being more comprehensive given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations), the description is inadequate. While an output schema exists (which helps with return values), the description doesn't address critical context like permission requirements, behavioral constraints, or parameter guidance. For a channel update tool in a Discord-like system, this leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 10 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description only mentions three parameters ('name, topic, and category') out of 10, leaving 7 parameters completely undocumented. This fails to compensate for the poor schema coverage and provides minimal semantic value beyond the schema's property names.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('channel settings'), and provides specific examples of what can be updated ('name, topic, and category'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools like 'edit_role' or 'create_text_channel', which might also modify channel-related properties.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions), when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'delete_channel' or 'create_text_channel' for channel management tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether this operation is reversible, what happens if a role with the same name exists, rate limits, or what the output contains. For a 10-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
The description is extremely concise at just 8 words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and context. Every word serves a purpose, making it maximally efficient in terms of word count.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 10-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely inadequate. While there is an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description fails to address critical aspects like parameter semantics, behavioral characteristics, usage context, or differentiation from sibling tools. The existence of an output schema doesn't compensate for these fundamental gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description provides zero information about any of the 10 parameters, despite having 0% schema description coverage. The schema has titles but no descriptions for any parameters, so the description should compensate but doesn't mention name, server_id, color, permissions, or any other parameters. This leaves the agent with only parameter names and types but no semantic understanding.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new role') and specifies the context ('in the specified server'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'add_role' or 'edit_role', which appear to be related operations in the same domain.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'add_role' or 'edit_role' that appear in the sibling tools list. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for role creation versus other role-related operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write operation, the description doesn't address permission requirements, rate limits, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the output contains. It provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with 5 parameters (1 required), no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. While an output schema exists (which relieves the description from explaining return values), the description doesn't address the mutation nature of the operation, parameter meanings, or usage context needed for an AI agent to effectively use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about any parameters, not even mentioning the required 'name' parameter or explaining what 'server_id', 'category_id', 'topic', or 'reason' mean in context. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new stage channel') and purpose ('for events and announcements'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar sibling tools like create_text_channel or create_voice_channel, which would require explicit differentiation to earn a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like create_text_channel or create_voice_channel, nor does it mention prerequisites or context for creating stage channels. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's an update operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing settings), has rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields (e.g., partial vs. full updates). For a mutation tool with 12 parameters, this is a significant gap.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update') and resource ('role'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (12 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which might cover return values), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like permission requirements, update behavior, or parameter details, leaving the agent under-informed for a tool with many configuration options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the generic 'configuration'. With 12 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the schema titles (e.g., 'Role Id', 'Color', 'Permissions') provide minimal context. The description fails to explain what fields can be updated, their formats, or interactions (e.g., 'color' vs. 'colour'), leaving parameters largely undocumented.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('configuration of an existing role'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'update_channel' or 'create_role' beyond mentioning 'existing role', which is implied by 'edit' in the name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'create_role' or 'delete_role', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions) or context (e.g., server-specific vs. global roles). It only states what the tool does, not when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, rate limits, whether reactions are additive or replace existing ones, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and sibling tools like 'add_reaction', the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and usage context, though the presence of an output schema mitigates some need to explain return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but fails to do so. It mentions 'multiple reactions' which hints at the 'emojis' array parameter, but doesn't explain what 'channel_id' or 'message_id' refer to, their formats, or constraints on emoji strings. This leaves parameters largely undocumented.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Add') and resource ('multiple reactions to a message'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from its sibling 'add_reaction' beyond implying multiple vs. single reactions, which is a minor gap.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_reaction' or other message-related tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention that this is a mutation requiring specific Discord permissions, potential rate limits, whether changes are reversible (via 'remove_role'), or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with 4 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and sibling tools like 'remove_role' and 'create_role', the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover permissions, error conditions, or how it relates to other tools. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description should do more to contextualize the tool's behavior and usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'user_id', 'role_id', 'server_id', or 'reason' mean, their formats (e.g., Discord snowflakes), or that 'server_id' might be optional in some contexts. With 4 parameters undocumented in both schema and description, this is inadequate.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Add') and resource ('a role to a Discord user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_role' or 'edit_role', which would require mentioning it's about assigning existing roles rather than creating or modifying them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_role' or 'edit_role'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing proper permissions) or contextual constraints, leaving 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Ban' implies a destructive, permanent action, the description doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, whether it's reversible (though 'unban_member' exists), what happens to the user's messages, or any rate limits. It mentions the server context but lacks critical operational details.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying the essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive administrative tool with 4 parameters (0% schema coverage) and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. While an output schema exists (reducing need to describe returns), it doesn't address permissions, consequences, parameter meanings, or differentiation from similar tools. The context demands more comprehensive guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but provides no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'user_id' or 'server_id' represent, what 'delete_message_seconds' controls, or how 'reason' is used. With 4 parameters (1 required) completely undocumented, the description fails to add meaningful semantic context.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Ban') and resource ('a user from the server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'kick_member' or 'timeout_member' by specifying a ban action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'unban_member' in terms of directionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'kick_member', 'timeout_member', or 'unban_member'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), consequences, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with no contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a destructive deletion operation but provides no information about permissions needed, whether deletions are permanent/reversible, rate limits, confirmation prompts, or what happens if some messages can't be deleted. The mention of 'recent messages' hints at temporal constraints but doesn't specify what 'recent' 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?
The description is extremely concise at just 7 words, front-loading the core purpose with zero wasted words. Every element ('Delete multiple recent messages from a channel') directly contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive bulk operation with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and multiple sibling tools, the description is inadequate. While an output schema exists (which reduces need to describe return values), the description doesn't address critical context like permissions, constraints, error conditions, or how this differs from similar tools. The combination of destructive operation + poor parameter documentation creates significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for all 4 parameters, the description provides no parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It doesn't explain what 'channel_id' refers to, what format 'message_ids' should be in, what 'limit' controls, or what 'reason' is used for. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete multiple recent messages') and resource ('from a channel'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_channel' or 'moderate_message', which might also handle message deletion in different contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides minimal guidance with 'recent messages' suggesting temporal scope, but offers no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives like 'moderate_message' or single-message deletion tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, permissions required, or when this bulk operation is preferred over individual deletions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify permission requirements, whether this is reversible (can categories be deleted?), what happens to existing channels, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic creation tool and front-loads the essential information (create + resource). Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 4 parameters (0% documented), no annotations, and sibling tools that include other creation operations, this description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which helps with return values), the description doesn't address permissions, parameter meanings, or usage context. Given the complexity and lack of structured documentation elsewhere, it should do more.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters (only 'name' required), the description provides no parameter information whatsoever. It doesn't explain what 'server_id', 'position', or 'reason' mean, their expected formats, or how they affect the creation. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new channel category'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_text_channel or create_voice_channel by specifying it creates a category rather than a specific channel type. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other creation tools beyond the resource name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing server permissions), when this is appropriate versus creating individual channels directly, or how it relates to siblings like create_text_channel or update_channel. The agent must infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: what permissions are required, whether the invite link is permanent or temporary by default, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or security implications. For a tool that creates access credentials, this is a significant transparency gap.
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?
The description is maximally concise - a single sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no unnecessary elaboration. While this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as a standalone statement it's efficiently structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, 1 required), complete lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and the fact that it creates access credentials, the description is severely incomplete. While an output schema exists (which helps with return values), the description doesn't provide the contextual information needed to understand when, why, or how to use this tool effectively, nor does it explain parameter meanings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for all 6 parameters, the description provides no parameter semantics whatsoever. It doesn't explain what 'channel_id' refers to, what 'max_age_seconds' controls, what 'temporary' and 'unique' mean in this context, or what 'reason' is used for. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Create an invite link') and the target resource ('for a channel'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential alternatives like 'list_invites' or explain what makes 'create_invite' unique among sibling tools that also involve channel operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like permissions needed), when this is appropriate versus other invitation methods, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'list_invites' or channel management tools. The agent receives no contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this action is reversible, rate limits, or what happens if the server_id is invalid. It provides minimal context beyond the basic action.
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?
The description is extremely concise at just 8 words, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no wasted words. Every word contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and multiple sibling channel creation tools, the description is insufficient. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description doesn't address critical context like parameter meanings, usage differentiation from siblings, or behavioral implications of creating a channel.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for 5 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'server_id', 'category_id', 'topic', or 'reason' mean, nor does it clarify that only 'name' is required. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new text channel') and target resource ('in the specified server'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_category', 'create_stage_channel', or 'create_voice_channel' that also create channels but of different types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'create_category' or 'create_voice_channel'. There's no mention of prerequisites, permissions needed, or situations where this tool would be preferred over other channel creation tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive, irreversible action, it doesn't specify required permissions, whether deletion is permanent, what happens to users with that role, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple action and front-loads the core purpose immediately, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and three parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context about permissions, irreversible consequences, parameter usage, and how it differs from siblings. While an output schema exists, the description should still address behavioral aspects given the tool's complexity and potential impact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but fails to do so. It mentions no parameters at all, leaving all three (role_id, server_id, reason) undocumented. The description adds no meaning beyond what the bare schema provides, which is insufficient given the low coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a role from the server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'remove_role' by specifying deletion rather than removal, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'edit_role' or 'create_role'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'remove_role' or 'edit_role', nor does it mention prerequisites, permissions, or consequences. It simply states what the tool does without context for appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what the output contains. For a destructive moderation tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for the tool's purpose, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (destructive moderation action), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't address critical context like permissions, consequences, or error handling, making it inadequate for safe use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'user_id', 'server_id', or 'reason' mean, their formats, or usage context. With 3 parameters undocumented, this fails to provide necessary semantic clarity.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('kick') and target ('a member from the server'), providing specific verb+resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ban_member' or 'timeout_member', which serve related but distinct moderation purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ban_member' or 'timeout_member'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., permissions needed), exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with no usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'remove' implies a mutation, the description doesn't specify permissions required, whether the operation is reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. It mentions 'the bot's reaction' which clarifies scope but doesn't address behavioral traits like what happens if the reaction doesn't exist.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core action and target immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and a mutation tool that likely requires specific permissions, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which reduces need to describe return values), the description doesn't address critical context like authentication requirements, error handling, or parameter usage. For a tool that modifies data, this leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'message' and 'reaction' but doesn't explain the three required parameters (channel_id, message_id, emoji) or their semantics. It provides no guidance on parameter formats, what constitutes valid emoji, or how to identify channels/messages.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('remove') and target ('the bot's reaction from a message'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies 'the bot's reaction' which distinguishes it from tools like 'remove_role' that affect different resources. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_reaction' or 'add_multiple_reactions' beyond the verb difference.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the bot must have previously added the reaction), nor does it contrast with related tools like 'add_reaction' or 'moderate_message'. The agent must infer usage context 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states the action is a removal but doesn't describe what happens after removal (e.g., whether it's reversible, if audit logs are created, or if it requires specific bot permissions). For a mutation tool with security implications, this lack of context is a significant gap.
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?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and security implications, the description is inadequate. It lacks behavioral context, parameter explanations, usage guidance, and doesn't leverage the output schema to clarify results. While concise, it fails to provide the completeness needed for safe and effective tool invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'user_id', 'role_id', 'server_id', or 'reason' represent, their formats, or how they interact. The agent must rely solely on schema titles, which are minimal (e.g., 'User Id' without context).
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Remove') and target ('a role from a Discord user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'add_role' and 'delete_role' by specifying removal from a user rather than deletion of the role itself. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all potential alternatives like 'edit_role' for permission changes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing appropriate permissions), when not to use it, or how it differs from related tools like 'kick_member' or 'timeout_member' for user management. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool can 'apply or clear' a timeout, implying mutation capabilities, but lacks details on permissions required, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or what the output contains. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and output expectations, even though an output schema exists. For a tool that modifies member states, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for undocumented parameters. It adds no information about the four parameters (user_id, server_id, duration_minutes, reason), such as how they interact (e.g., null duration_minutes might clear a timeout) or their formats. This leaves the agent reliant solely on the schema's basic titles.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Apply or clear') and target ('communication timeout for a member'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from similar sibling tools like 'ban_member', 'kick_member', or 'moderate_message', which also involve member restrictions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ban_member' or 'kick_member'. The description mentions both applying and clearing timeouts but doesn't specify scenarios or prerequisites for either action, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to the message after unpinning, whether the action is reversible, or any rate limits/error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple action and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which helps but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral context), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action but lacks crucial information about parameters, permissions, side effects, and usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but provides no parameter information. It doesn't explain what channel_id and message_id refer to, how to obtain them, what format they should be in, or what the optional reason parameter is for. The three parameters remain undocumented.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('unpin') and resource ('a message in a text channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'pin_message' or explain what unpinning entails beyond the basic action.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. The description doesn't mention when unpinning is appropriate, what permissions are required, or how it relates to 'pin_message' (its obvious sibling).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Add a reaction' implies a write operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the reaction already exists, rate limits, or what the output contains. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.
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?
The description is extremely concise at just 7 words, front-loading the core functionality with zero wasted words. It efficiently communicates the basic purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values) and the tool has only 3 straightforward parameters, the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it should provide more context about permissions, constraints, and parameter requirements to be truly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for all 3 parameters, the description provides no additional semantic information about what 'channel_id', 'message_id', or 'emoji' should contain. It doesn't explain format requirements, constraints, or examples for any of the parameters, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Add a reaction') and target ('to a specific message'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'add_multiple_reactions' which serves a similar purpose but with different functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'add_multiple_reactions' or 'remove_reaction'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, permissions needed, or contextual constraints for adding reactions to messages.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention required permissions, rate limits, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the output contains. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a creation tool and front-loads the essential information about what the tool does.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a creation tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is incomplete. While the output schema may cover return values, the description doesn't address permissions, error conditions, or parameter semantics. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 by explaining parameters. It mentions 'specified server' which hints at 'server_id', but doesn't explain the purpose of other parameters like 'category_id', 'user_limit', 'bitrate', or 'reason'. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema titles provide.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and resource ('new voice channel in the specified server'), which is specific and unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_stage_channel' or 'create_text_channel', but the mention of 'voice channel' provides adequate distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'create_stage_channel' or 'create_text_channel'. It mentions 'specified server' but doesn't explain prerequisites, permissions required, or contextual constraints for voice channel creation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but the description doesn't explicitly state this, nor does it mention permissions needed, rate limits, or what the output contains. It lacks critical context for a destructive operation.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is inadequate. It doesn't address safety concerns, permissions, or behavioral expectations beyond the basic action. More context is needed given the tool's complexity and risk.
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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description doesn't mention parameters at all, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. However, with only 2 parameters (channel_id and reason), the names are somewhat self-explanatory, keeping it at a baseline 3 rather than lower.
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?
The description 'Delete a Discord channel' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (Discord channel). It's specific and unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_role' or 'bulk_delete_messages' which also perform deletion operations on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like required permissions), when deletion is appropriate versus other channel management tools like 'update_channel', or what happens after deletion. The agent must 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the basic function but doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when server_id is null. For a read operation with 3 parameters, 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic list operation and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. The output schema existence means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description should still address parameter meanings and usage context given the lack of schema descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 3 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what server_id represents, what limit controls, or what include_bots does. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('members of a Discord server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'list_servers' or 'list_roles', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'get_user_info' or 'list_servers'. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or comparison with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context 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.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the message is already pinned, rate limits, or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema will handle return values, but the description should do more to explain parameters, permissions, and behavioral context for a tool that modifies channel state.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'channel_id' and 'message_id' refer to, their formats, or the optional 'reason' parameter's purpose. With 3 parameters completely undocumented, the description fails to provide meaningful semantic context beyond the basic action.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Pin') and resource ('a message in a text channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'unpin_message' beyond the opposite action, missing explicit differentiation that would warrant a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'unpin_message' or other message management tools. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing appropriate permissions) or contextual cues for when pinning is appropriate versus other actions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states this is a read operation, implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the 'limit' parameter), error conditions, or whether it returns messages in chronological order. The mention of 'recent' is vague and unhelpful for an agent.
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?
The description is a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Read recent messages'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's basic function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that there's an output schema (which should define return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, for a read operation with 2 parameters and no annotations, the description is too minimal—it lacks context on permissions, behavior, or parameter details. It's barely adequate as a starting point but leaves significant gaps for an agent to infer usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameter titles ('Channel Id', 'Limit') provide no semantic context. The description adds no information about parameters—it doesn't explain what 'channel_id' represents (e.g., a Discord channel ID), what format it expects (string vs. integer), or how 'limit' interacts with 'recent' (e.g., whether it caps results or defines a timeframe). This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Read') and resource ('recent messages from a channel'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'get_channels' or 'list_members' that might also retrieve channel-related data, nor does it specify what 'recent' means in terms of timeframe or ordering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 siblings like 'get_channels' (which might list channels) and 'send_message' (which writes to channels), there's no indication of whether this is for viewing message history, monitoring activity, or other use cases. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, rate limits, message formatting options (e.g., embeds), error conditions, or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavior, parameters, and usage context, leaving gaps that could hinder effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but fails to do so. It doesn't explain what 'channel_id' represents (e.g., Discord snowflake ID), acceptable formats (string vs. integer), or where to obtain it. It also doesn't clarify 'message' constraints (e.g., length limits, markdown support). With 2 undocumented parameters, this adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Send a message') and target ('to a Discord text channel or thread'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools like 'read_messages' or 'moderate_message' beyond the obvious verb difference, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing proper permissions), exclusions (e.g., not for voice channels), or related tools (e.g., 'bulk_delete_messages' for cleanup). This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Remove a ban') which implies a mutation, but doesn't mention required permissions, whether the action is reversible, potential side effects (e.g., user regaining access), or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and doesn't include any unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and moderate complexity (mutation with 3 parameters), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks context about permissions, error handling, and parameter meanings. For a ban reversal tool, more behavioral context would be helpful despite the output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'a user' which aligns with 'user_id', but doesn't explain the optional 'server_id' (context) or 'reason' (audit log) parameters. With 3 parameters total and only one implicitly covered, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's obvious from parameter names.
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?
The description 'Remove a ban for a user' clearly states the action (remove) and target (ban for a user), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'ban_member' and 'kick_member' by specifying the reversal of a ban. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the resource context (e.g., server/moderator action), which keeps it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., user must be banned first), nor does it differentiate from similar tools like 'kick_member' or 'timeout_member' in terms of use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It mentions grouping by category, which adds some context, but fails to describe key behaviors like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or the format of the output (though an output schema exists). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List channels') and includes essential detail ('grouped by category'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it should provide more context on usage and behavior to be fully complete, leaving gaps in guidance and transparency.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies a 'server_id' parameter by mentioning 'Discord server', but does not explain its purpose, format, or that it's optional (default null). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('channels for a Discord server'), and specifies grouping ('grouped by category'), which adds useful detail. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_servers' or 'get_server_info', which reduces it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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, such as 'list_servers' for server-level information or 'get_server_info' for server details. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states the action ('List') but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether it's read-only (implied but not explicit), what the output format is (though output schema exists), pagination details (limit parameter hints at it), or authentication requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it lacks behavioral context and parameter guidance, making it incomplete for optimal agent use.
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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. However, with only 2 parameters (server_id and limit) and an output schema present, the baseline is 3 as the description doesn't add value but the schema structure is minimal.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('banned users for the server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_user_info' or 'list_members' which might also provide user-related information, though the focus on 'banned' users is specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing server_id), exclusions, or compare to related tools like 'unban_member' or 'ban_member', leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states the tool lists invites but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it requires specific permissions, how results are formatted, pagination behavior, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves access control.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (listing invites likely involves permissions and filtering), the description is minimal. It benefits from having an output schema (which handles return values), but with no annotations and low parameter coverage, it lacks details on behavioral traits and usage context, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.
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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description mentions 'for a server', which aligns with the 'server_id' parameter in the schema. However, it doesn't explain the parameter's optional nature (default: null) or what happens when it's omitted (e.g., listing invites for all servers vs. current context). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('active invites for a server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_invite' or 'list_servers', but the specificity of 'active invites' provides some implicit distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing server access), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'list_servers' or 'create_invite', leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely requires server access.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about permissions or server access requirements, which are crucial for Discord API tools. With no annotations, it should provide more behavioral details to be fully complete.
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?
The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter (server_id), the description doesn't compensate by explaining the parameter's purpose or usage. However, since there's only one optional parameter and an output schema exists, the baseline is 3, as the schema handles the minimal parameter documentation.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'all roles defined in the Discord server', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_server_info' or 'list_members' which might also provide role information, so it's not a perfect 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing server access), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_server_info' that might include role data, leaving the agent with no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the destructive actions (deletion and timeout) but doesn't specify whether these are reversible, what permissions are needed, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when timeout_minutes is null. For a mutation tool with significant impact, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the primary action and includes the optional secondary action. Every word serves a purpose in conveying the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive moderation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and multiple sibling alternatives, the description is inadequate. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description doesn't address critical context like required permissions, irreversible consequences, or when to choose this over similar tools. The presence of an output schema doesn't compensate for these significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for 5 parameters, the description provides no parameter-specific information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It mentions 'optionally timing out the author' which hints at the timeout_minutes parameter, but doesn't explain channel_id, message_id, delete_message (default behavior), or reason parameters. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the specific action ('moderate a message by deleting it and optionally timing out the author'), identifying both the primary verb ('moderate') and the resources involved (message, author). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'delete_channel', 'bulk_delete_messages', and 'timeout_member' by focusing on message-level moderation with optional author timeout.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like 'bulk_delete_messages' for multiple messages or 'timeout_member' for timeout without deletion. It doesn't mention prerequisites, permissions required, or contextual factors that should influence tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving 'detailed information' but does not specify what details are included, whether it's a read-only operation, permission requirements, rate limits, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with external data.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity is low (a read operation with one parameter) and an output schema exists, the description is somewhat complete but lacks behavioral details. Without annotations, it should provide more context on what 'detailed information' entails and usage scenarios to fully guide the agent.
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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, but the description implies the parameter is for identifying a specific server. Since there is only one parameter, the baseline is high, and the description adds context by indicating the tool focuses on a Discord server, though it does not detail the parameter's format or optionality.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'detailed information about a Discord server', making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_servers' or 'get_user_info', which could provide related but different information.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_servers' for a broader overview or 'get_user_info' for user-specific data. The description lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. It states it 'fetches information' but doesn't specify what information is returned (though an output schema exists), whether it requires permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on usage guidelines and behavioral traits, which are important for a tool in a server with many sibling alternatives. It meets the basic threshold but has clear gaps.
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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by implying the parameter's purpose ('specific Discord user'). It doesn't detail the format of 'user_id' (e.g., string vs. integer), but since there's only one parameter and the description adds meaningful context, it scores above baseline. A perfect score is reserved for explicit parameter explanations.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Fetch') and resource ('information about a specific Discord user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_members' or 'get_server_info' which might also provide user-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a user ID), exclusions, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'list_members' that might list multiple users. This leaves the agent with minimal context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe important traits: whether it requires specific permissions, how results are formatted (e.g., pagination, sorting), rate limits, or what 'currently connected to' means in practice (e.g., cached vs. real-time data).
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read operation with 0 parameters and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about behavioral aspects (permissions, data freshness, format) that would be helpful given the absence of annotations and the tool's role among many Discord management siblings.
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 has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter explanation in the description. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, which is correct for a parameterless tool.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('Discord servers the bot is currently connected to'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_server_info' which might retrieve detailed information about a specific server rather than listing all servers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like bot permissions), timing considerations, or compare it to similar tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'get_server_info' for detailed info vs. this for listing).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-discord MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wowjinxy/mcp-discord/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wowjinxy/mcp-discord)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-discord MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wowjinxy/mcp-discord/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/wowjinxy/mcp-discord)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/wowjinxy/mcp-discord'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server