Retrieve and display complaints filed on a TeamSpeak 3 virtual server, with optional filtering by target client database ID.
List complaints on the virtual server, optionally filtered by target client
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target_client_db_id | No | Target client database ID to filter |
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 of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not mention permissions, pagination, return format, or any other behavioral trait beyond the basic action.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the action, scope, and optional filter efficiently.
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 low-complexity list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the essential purpose and filter. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits any behavioral context such as read-only nature or pagination, leaving only minimal completeness.
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%, and the single parameter is already documented as 'Target client database ID to filter.' The description adds 'optionally' and restates that it filters by target client, but does not provide additional syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('complaints on the virtual server'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. No sibling tool also lists complaints, but the description does not explicitly differentiate itself from the adjacent 'ban_list' or mention any alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.
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?
It states that results can be optionally filtered by target client, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or routing hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.