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 states the action ('kick') but doesn't clarify if this is destructive (likely yes, as kicking implies removal), reversible, or has side effects (e.g., logging, notifications). It also omits details like rate limits, authentication needs, or response format, which are critical for a mutation 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 front-loads the core action ('kick a client') and specifies the scope ('from server or channel'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it easy 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., destructiveness, permissions), response expectations, or error handling. Given the complexity of client management in a server context, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 already documents all parameters (client_id, reason, from_server) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the 'from_server' parameter's purpose, aligning with the baseline score 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 action ('kick') and target ('client from server or channel'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'ban_client' or 'move_client', which also involve client management actions, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 'ban_client' or 'move_client'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing admin permissions) or typical use cases (e.g., moderation vs. temporary removal), leaving the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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