Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
teamspeak3-mcp

teamspeak3-mcp

by fl0w1nd
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

channel_info

Retrieve detailed information for a specific TeamSpeak 3 channel using its ID to manage server channels.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific channel

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_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
channel_idYesChannel ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup, but it never confirms that, nor does it disclose permission requirements, whether missing channels error, or anything about the returned payload. For a zero-annotation tool this is a significant gap.

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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no padding. It is efficient, though it is sized at the absolute minimum rather than fully exploiting the space for useful context.

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 simple one-parameter read tool this is minimally adequate, but with no annotations, no output schema, and no return-format hint, an agent cannot predict what 'detailed information' contains or what errors to expect. A sentence or two more would close the gap.

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% for the single channel_id parameter, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation. The description adds no format, range, or sourcing details (e.g., how to obtain a channel ID), which is the expected baseline when coverage is complete.

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 (Get) and resource (channel information) scoped to a single channel identified by ID. It is clear what the tool does, but it makes no attempt to differentiate itself from sibling tools like channel_perm, channel_update, or channel_create beyond the obvious read/write distinction.

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. For example, it does not say to use this instead of or alongside channel_perm when permission details are needed, nor does it state any preconditions for retrieving channel info.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools