teamspeak3-mcp

file_info

Retrieve detailed metadata for a specific file in a TeamSpeak 3 channel file repository using channel ID and full file path; include password if required.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific file in a channel's file repository

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": {
      "channel_id": "<channel_id>",
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "file_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`file_path`	Yes	Full path to the file
`channel_id`	Yes	Channel ID containing the file
`channel_password`	No	Channel password if required

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation but does not state whether permissions are required, what happens if the file is missing, whether channel_password is needed, or what side effects exist. This is a significant transparency gap for an unannotated tool.

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every word contributes to clarifying what the tool retrieves. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 read tool with full parameter coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves gaps around return contents, permissions, and edge cases. It does not need to duplicate the schema, but with no annotations or output schema it could say more about behavior.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including their meaning and required status. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond naming the file's repository context, which is the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific file') with clear scope ('in a channel's file repository'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling file_list by emphasizing a single specific file rather than listing files.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this tool over siblings like file_list or channel_info, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and description.

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