teamspeak3-mcp

client_poke

Send an alert popup to a TeamSpeak 3 client to grab attention when a private message may be missed.

Instructions

Send a poke (alert popup) to a client — more attention-grabbing than a private message

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": {
      "client_id": "<client_id>",
      "message": "<message>"
    },
    "name": "client_poke"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`message`	Yes	Poke message
`client_id`	Yes	Target client ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is an intrusive alert/popup rather than a silent message, but it says nothing about required permissions, whether the client can suppress or dismiss the popup, rate limits, or error behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence that front-loads the action ('Send a poke...') and appends the differentiating detail. No filler, no repetition of schema content.

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 two-parameter notification tool this covers purpose and relative urgency, which is largely sufficient. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the side-effect profile (permissions, disruption, failure modes) unaddressed.

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% with only two simple required parameters (client_id, message), so the schema already documents everything. The description adds no format, length, or content guidance for the poke message beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 and resource (send a poke to a client) and clarifies the resource is an 'alert popup'. It also positions the tool against plain messaging via 'more attention-grabbing than a private message,' which effectively distinguishes it from msg_send without naming the sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The comparative clause 'more attention-grabbing than a private message' gives the agent a clear selection cue: reach for this when a normal message isn't urgent enough. It stops short of stating explicit when-not conditions or naming msg_send as the fallback, so it is context rather than a full routing rule.

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