TeamSpeak 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 mentions 'deploy/restore,' which implies a write/mutation operation, but fails to detail critical aspects like whether this is destructive (e.g., overwrites current server settings), requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the expected outcome is. This is inadequate 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.

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, 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.

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

Given the complexity of a server deployment/restore operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., destructiveness, permissions), expected outcomes, error conditions, and how it relates to sibling tools like 'create_server_snapshot,' leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'snapshot_data' documented as 'Snapshot data to deploy (from create_server_snapshot).' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 ('deploy/restore') and resource ('server configuration from a snapshot'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'create_server_snapshot' or other configuration management tools, 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 minimal guidance by implying usage when needing to deploy or restore from a snapshot, but it doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., 'update_server_settings'), prerequisites (e.g., requires a snapshot from 'create_server_snapshot'), or exclusions. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection.

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