teamspeak3-mcp

ban_manage

Create, delete, or clear ban rules on a TeamSpeak 3 server by IP, UID, or name to block unwanted users or lift restrictions.

Instructions

Create, delete, or clear ban rules on the server

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "ban_manage"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	No	IP address pattern to ban
`uid`	No	Client unique identifier to ban
`name`	No	Name pattern to ban
`time`	No	Ban duration in seconds (0 = permanent)
`action`	Yes	Action to perform
`ban_id`	No	Ban ID (required for delete)
`reason`	No	Ban reason	Banned by AI

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that rules can be created, deleted, or cleared, but does not describe permissions required, whether deletions are reversible, the effect of clearing all rules, or any rate limits. It signals mutation but lacks the depth expected for a destructive-capable tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single efficient sentence with no filler and the core actions are front-loaded. It is not bloated, though it is very sparse for a tool with this many parameters.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that this is a mutation tool with seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It omits when to use each action, permission requirements, destructive implications of delete/clear, and any return or error behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 seven parameters in detail, including the action enum and ban_id requirement for deletion. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline case for full coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific set of actions (create, delete, clear) on a specific resource (ban rules), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like ban_list or client_ban, leaving some ambiguity about when this tool is the right choice.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention ban_list for viewing bans or client_ban for banning a specific client, nor does it state prerequisites or conditions for using each action.

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