TeamSpeak MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Create' implying a write/mutation operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required authentication level, whether the token is permanent or temporary, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description adds 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.

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and purpose, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the created token looks like, how it's used, error conditions, or security implications. Given the complexity (creating access tokens) and lack of structured data, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 fully documents all 5 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the token is for 'server or channel group access' (which aligns with token_type enum). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('privilege key/token') with specific purpose ('for server or channel group access'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_privilege_tokens' by focusing on creation rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_server_group' or 'create_channel' beyond the token focus.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'manage_server_group_permissions' or 'assign_client_to_group'. The agent must infer usage solely from the purpose statement.

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