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 what type of logs are retrieved but doesn't mention permissions required, rate limits, whether this is a read-only operation, what format the logs return, or any other behavioral characteristics. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably accesses system logs.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficiently front-loaded with the core 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 logging tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'instance-level logs' contain, what format they return, whether there are permission requirements, or how this differs from sibling logging tools. The context signals show this is a 3-parameter tool accessing system-level data, yet the description provides minimal operational context.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation but doesn't provide extra value regarding parameter usage or semantics.

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 retrieving 'instance-level logs' with a specific distinction from 'virtual server logs', providing a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'view_server_logs' or 'add_log_entry', which would be needed for 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 contrasting 'instance-level logs' with 'virtual server logs', but offers no explicit when-to-use instructions, no mention of prerequisites, and no comparison to alternative logging tools like 'view_server_logs' that exist among siblings.

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