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 'enhanced options' but doesn't explain what they entail (e.g., performance impact, authentication needs, or rate limits). For a tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 purpose. However, 'enhanced options' is vague and doesn't earn its place without elaboration, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, output format, and how 'enhanced options' relate to the parameters, leaving the agent poorly equipped to use it effectively.

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 fully documents all 10 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'enhanced options' (which might relate to parameters like 'complete_mode' or 'enhanced_debug'), but doesn't clarify their semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('view') and resource ('recent entries from the virtual server log'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_instance_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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_instance_logs' (a sibling tool) or other log-related operations. It mentions 'enhanced options' but doesn't specify what contexts warrant their use.

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