List all active ban rules on a TeamSpeak 3 virtual server to review current restrictions and verify which bans are in effect.
List all active ban rules on the virtual server
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "ban_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. "List" implies a read operation and "active" hints at filtering out expired/revoked rules, but there is no disclosure of permissions required, pagination, ordering, or result size for a ban list that can grow large.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and scope appear immediately. Nothing in the sentence is redundant or padding.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema read tool the definition is minimally viable, but it omits the relationship to ban_manage/client_ban and says nothing about return shape or pagination. An agent can call it, but cannot confidently route between the three ban-related tools.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no misleading detail about inputs.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("List all active ban rules") and scopes it to "the virtual server," so an agent knows exactly what is returned. However, it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from its close siblings ban_manage and client_ban, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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?
There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, even though ban_manage and client_ban sit right next to it in the toolset. The reader must guess whether this tool also creates, edits, or removes bans.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.