Ban a specified TeamSpeak 3 user by ID, with optional reason and duration; set duration to 0 for permanent.
Ban a client from the server
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | No | Ban reason | Banned by AI |
| duration | No | Ban duration in seconds (0 = permanent) | |
| client_id | Yes | Client ID |
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 the full behavioral burden and falls short. It does not disclose that this is a destructive action, whether the client is disconnected, whether the ban is reversible, or that duration=0 means permanent (that fact lives only in the schema default).
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 short sentence with no filler, and the action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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 destructive, irreversible-feeling moderation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover permissions, permanence semantics, and side effects. It covers none of these, leaving the agent to reconstruct behavior from the schema and sibling names.
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%, with reason, duration (including the 0 = permanent convention), and client_id all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own, 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 and resource: "Ban a client from the server." An agent can identify the action immediately, but the description does nothing to separate it from the closely related sibling client_kick (kick vs. ban) or to acknowledge ban_list/ban_manage which operate on the same domain.
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 ban rather than kick, no mention of prerequisites such as permissions, and no reference to any alternative tool. The agent must infer the ban/kick distinction from sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.