Move a client to a specified channel on your TeamSpeak 3 server. Use this tool to transfer users between channels by providing client and channel IDs.
Move a client to another channel
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| client_id | Yes | Client ID | |
| channel_id | Yes | Destination channel 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 burden. It does not state what happens to the client's previous channel state, whether the move is reversible, what permissions are required, or whether the client is disconnected/reconnected. Only the basic action is conveyed.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste that front-loads the core action.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no usage context, the description leaves significant gaps: side effects, permission requirements, and failure modes are all unspecified.
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 both parameters. The description imposes a near-zero addition to parameter meaning, but the baseline for full schema coverage is 3.
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 (move) and resource (client) with a clear scope (to another channel). It is distinguishable from siblings like client_kick or client_ban, but does not explicitly differentiate from those alternatives.
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, no prerequisites (e.g., permissions, whether the client must be online), and no alternatives mentioned. An agent must infer everything from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.