Retrieves detailed information about a specific online TeamSpeak 3 client using its client ID, allowing AI models to identify users and inspect their server status.
Get detailed information about a specific online client
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not stated), what permissions are required, or what the response includes. For a read tool, it fails to mention side effects (none) or safety profile.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It is appropriately sized, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
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?
Given there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what information is returned, whether the client must be online, and any prerequisites. It omits all of this, leaving significant gaps for an agent to infer.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'client_id' as a number. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as format, source, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting for this single parameter.
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?
The description states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific online client'), distinguishing it from client_move/client_kick which are mutation siblings. However, it is vague about what 'detailed information' entails and does not differentiate it from similar info siblings like client_perm or channel_info beyond the resource name.
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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not state the context for retrieving client info (e.g., after a connection event, for troubleshooting) nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. It simply restates the basic function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.