Add, remove, or list permissions for a TeamSpeak 3 channel group by specifying group ID and action. Use it to control channel group access and capabilities.
Manage permissions for a channel group: add, remove, or list
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | No | Permission value (for add) | |
| action | Yes | Action to perform | |
| group_id | Yes | Channel group ID | |
| permission | No | Permission name (for add/remove) |
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 and falls short. It does not disclose that 'add'/'remove' are mutations (likely requiring elevated auth), whether removal is reversible, or what 'list' returns — meaningfully different behaviors are flattened into one vague sentence.
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 compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the operations trailing. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true 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?
For a 4-parameter mutation-capable tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits auth requirements, the semantics of the permission/value pairing, and any sense of what the list action returns.
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 every parameter (action, group_id, permission, value) is already documented in the schema with its applicable action noted. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema provides, 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+resource ('Manage permissions for a channel group') and enumerates the three supported operations. It implicitly distinguishes the resource from siblings like sgroup_perm and channel_perm by naming 'channel group', but never explicitly routes away from them.
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?
No guidance on when to use this over perm_list, perm_find, perm_overview, channel_perm, or sgroup_perm. The add/remove/list enumeration merely restates the action enum already in the schema rather than describing when each applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.