teamspeak3-mcp

channel_create

Create a new channel on the TeamSpeak 3 server to organize voice rooms. Specify a name, optional parent channel, and permanent or temporary status.

Instructions

Create a new channel 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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "channel_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Channel name
`parent_id`	No	Parent channel ID
`permanent`	No	Permanent or temporary channel

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 provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about side effects, permission requirements, whether 'permanent' changes behavior irreversibly, or what the tool returns. 'Create' implies mutation but no mutation-specific traits (authorization, defaults, reversibility) are described.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words and the core action stated immediately. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than maximally informative.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should compensate with permission requirements, side-effect notes, or return behavior. Instead it offers only the bare action, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents name, parent_id, and permanent with their types and defaults; the description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that. 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.

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb (Create) and resource (channel) plus the scope ('on the server'), so an agent can distinguish it from channel_delete, channel_update, and channel_info at a glance. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself with those siblings, keeping it below a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any stated prerequisites such as required permissions. The description only asserts what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer all usage context from the name.

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