Discord Decision MCP

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 adds valuable context beyond the schema: it specifies the tool is '논블로킹' (non-blocking), indicating it won't block execution while sending notifications. It also clarifies the tool's purpose is for notifications 'that don't require decisions,' which helps understand its scope. However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior.

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

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

The description is extremely concise and well-structured. Two short sentences efficiently communicate the tool's purpose and usage guidelines. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information. The Korean language doesn't affect conciseness scoring.

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

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

Given the tool has an output schema (which means return values are documented elsewhere), no annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description provides good contextual completeness. It covers purpose, key behavioral trait (non-blocking), and usage guidelines. For a notification tool with structured documentation elsewhere, this is reasonably complete, though it could mention more about error handling or performance characteristics.

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

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

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions general use cases but doesn't explain parameter meanings or relationships. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '진행 상황을 Discord에 알린다 (논블로킹)' translates to 'Notify progress to Discord (non-blocking).' It specifies the action (notify), target (Discord), and a key behavioral trait (non-blocking). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like discord_report_progress, which might have overlapping functionality.

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

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

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: '결정이 필요 없는 상태 업데이트, 경고, 완료 알림에 사용한다' translates to 'Use for status updates, warnings, and completion notifications that don't require decisions.' This gives good guidance on appropriate use cases. It doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives like discord_ask_decision for decision-related notifications.

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