TeamSpeak MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Ban a client from the server' implies a destructive action, but it doesn't specify whether this requires special permissions, if the ban is reversible, what happens to the client's data, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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.

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

The description is a single, direct sentence that front-loads the core action without any wasted words. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, making it easy to parse and understand at a glance.

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 complexity of a ban operation (a destructive action with no annotations and no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions needed, consequences, or error handling, nor does it provide usage context relative to siblings. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (client_id, reason, duration) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the implications of 'permanent' bans or typical reason formats, but the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score of 3.

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 verb ('ban') and resource ('client from the server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'kick_client' or 'manage_ban_rules', which would require more specific context about the distinction between banning and kicking or managing ban rules.

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

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'kick_client' or 'list_bans'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing administrative permissions or specific server states, which is critical for a tool that performs a potentially disruptive action like banning.

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