Add, remove, or list permissions on a specific TeamSpeak 3 channel to control user access and allowed actions.
Manage permissions on a specific channel: add, remove, or list
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | No | Permission value (required for add) | |
| action | Yes | Action to perform | |
| channel_id | Yes | Channel ID | |
| permission | No | Permission name (required for add/remove) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the action list: no permission requirements, no note on whether add/remove are reversible or auditable, and no confirmation of whether 'list' is read-only. For a mutation-capable permission tool this is a substantial gap.
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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the three actions enumerated at the end. Nothing wasted.
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?
Adequate for a 4-param tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, but the absence of annotations and behavioral detail leaves an agent without safety, permission, or side-effect context it would need to invoke confidently.
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 documents each parameter including which are required for which action (value for add, permission for add/remove). The description adds no meaning beyond that baseline, so 3 is appropriate.
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 (manage permissions) and resource (a specific channel), and enumerates the three sub-operations (add, remove, list). It distinguishes itself from sibling client_perm and sgroup_perm by naming the channel scope, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 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?
The description implies usage via the action list but gives no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative routing. An agent knows the three modes exist but not under what conditions one is preferred over channel_perm alternatives like perm_overview.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.