TeamSpeak MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function without mentioning whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, how results are returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a search tool.

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's appropriately sized for a simple search tool and front-loads the essential 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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., channel objects, IDs, partial matches), error conditions, or how results are structured. This leaves the agent with incomplete context for proper tool invocation.

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 description mentions 'name pattern' which aligns with the single 'pattern' parameter documented in the schema with 100% coverage. However, it doesn't add meaningful context beyond what the schema already provides, such as explaining what constitutes a valid pattern (wildcards, regex, case sensitivity).

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 as 'Search for channels by name pattern', which specifies the verb (search), resource (channels), and search criteria (name pattern). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_channels' or 'channel_info', 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 like 'list_channels' or 'channel_info'. It doesn't indicate whether this is for fuzzy matching, exact searches, or when a full list would be more appropriate.

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