teamspeak3-mcp

channel_delete

Delete a TeamSpeak 3 channel by ID. Set force to true to remove it even if clients are connected.

Instructions

Delete a channel from 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": {
      "channel_id": "<channel_id>"
    },
    "name": "channel_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`force`	No	Force deletion even if clients are present
`channel_id`	Yes	Channel ID to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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 says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, or what happens to connected clients. The schema hints at a 'force' flag for deleting channels with clients present, but the description never explains this behavior or its consequences.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single short sentence that leads with the action and resource. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a destructive, irreversible operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but leaves out consequences, permission requirements, and the meaning of the force flag. An agent could call it, but not with full awareness of the impact.

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 both channel_id and force are already documented in the schema, and the description adds nothing further. Per the high-coverage baseline, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a channel'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like channel_update or channel_perm, but the destructive verb makes the distinction obvious enough.

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?

The description offers no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as channel_update for non-destructive changes. An agent gets no routing guidance beyond the bare operation name.

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