Assign a client to a channel group in a specific channel on TeamSpeak 3. Provide the group ID, channel ID, and client database ID to set the assignment.
Assign a client to a channel group in a specific channel
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_id | Yes | Channel group ID to assign | |
| channel_id | Yes | Channel ID where the assignment applies | |
| client_db_id | Yes | Client database ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it discloses only the bare action. It says nothing about required permissions, whether assignment is idempotent or overwrites an existing group membership, or what happens on failure — all material 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably too terse for a mutation tool with no annotations to lean on.
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 three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits permissions, idempotency, and side effects, leaving real gaps an agent would need filled before invoking it.
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 defines group_id, channel_id, and client_db_id. The description merely restates those concepts and adds no format, range, or edge-case detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Assign') and the resources involved (client → channel group → channel), so the operation is identifiable. It does not, however, distinguish itself from related siblings like cgroup_create, cgroup_perm, or the sgroup_* family, leaving the agent to infer scope from the name alone.
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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives despite a dense sibling set (cgroup_create, cgroup_perm, client_perm). The agent is given no routing signal beyond the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.