Send a text message to a TeamSpeak channel or a private message to a client. Provide mode, target ID, and message text.
Send a text message to a channel or a private message to a client
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | Yes | 'channel' = send to a channel, 'private' = send to a specific client | |
| message | Yes | Message text to send | |
| target_id | Yes | Channel ID (for mode=channel) or Client ID (for mode=private) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state required permissions, whether the send is delivered immediately, rate limits, or what happens on failure — for a mutation tool this is a significant gap.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler that conveys verb, resource, and both targets. Nothing is wasted.
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 simple 3-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations it should say more about permissions or delivery behavior to be genuinely complete for a write action.
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%, so the enum meanings for mode and the target_id interpretation are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the channel/private choice, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema baseline.
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 ('Send') and resource ('text message') plus the two delivery targets (channel or client). It is clear on its own, though it never names or distinguishes itself from siblings like client_poke or channel_info.
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?
The description implicitly frames usage (sending a message, choosing channel vs private), but offers no when-to-use guidance or explicit alternatives among the many sibling tools. An agent must infer the routing decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.