TeamSpeak MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether changes are reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens on success/failure (e.g., no output schema). The 'etc.' hints at more settings but lacks specifics, leaving gaps in transparency 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 and resource. It uses 'etc.' to imply additional settings without listing all eight parameters, avoiding redundancy with the schema. However, it could be more structured by explicitly noting the tool's scope (server-level) or linking to related tools, but it remains appropriately concise for its purpose.

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 updating server settings (8 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., auth needs, side effects), usage context, and output expectations. For a tool with significant mutation potential and no structured safety hints, the description should provide more guidance to ensure correct agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 8 parameters documented in the schema (e.g., 'hostmessage_mode' with mode values). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing examples (name, welcome message, max clients) but doesn't explain parameter interactions, defaults, or constraints not in the schema. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('Update') and resource ('virtual server settings'), with examples of specific fields (name, welcome message, max clients). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'update_channel' by focusing on server-level settings rather than channel-level. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other server-related tools like 'server_info' beyond the update action.

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., needing admin permissions), when not to use it (e.g., for read-only operations where 'server_info' would suffice), or how it relates to sibling tools like 'manage_server_group_permissions' for permission updates. Usage is implied by the verb 'Update' but not explicitly contextualized.

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