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. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't mention permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' entails (e.g., fields returned, format). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely accesses sensitive client data.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the key information.

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?

For a tool accessing client data with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, potential authentication requirements, or how this differs from sibling tools. Given the context of client management operations, more behavioral context is needed.

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%, with the single parameter 'client_id' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond implying it's for a 'specific client', which the schema already covers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific client'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'list_clients' or 'search_clients' that might also provide client information, which prevents 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.

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 'list_clients' and 'search_clients' available, there's no indication whether this tool is for single-client lookup, detailed vs. summary views, or other contextual differences.

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