Find all assignments of a specific permission across server groups, channel groups, channels, and clients to audit or troubleshoot TeamSpeak 3 access rights.
Find all assignments of a specific permission across server groups, channel groups, channels, and clients
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| permission | Yes | Permission name (e.g. 'b_virtualserver_info_view') |
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 usefully discloses the traversal scope (server groups, channel groups, channels, clients), but says nothing about permissions required, result size/pagination, or whether the operation is purely read-only (only implied by 'Find').
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 sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. The scope enumeration is the one detail worth carrying and it is placed at the end where it reads naturally.
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 single-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and search scope adequately. The main omission is any note on result volume or required permissions, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.
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?
One parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'permission' including an example value. The description adds only the notion that the parameter selects 'a specific permission', matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
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?
Clear verb ('Find') plus resource ('assignments of a specific permission') and an explicit search scope across server groups, channel groups, channels, and clients. It distinguishes itself from a plain permission listing, though it does not name siblings like perm_list or perm_overview as 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?
The use case (auditing where a given permission is granted) is implied by 'Find all assignments... across...', but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or routing to an alternative such as perm_list or perm_overview. Guidance is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.