teamspeak3-mcp

server_list

Retrieve online clients, channels, server groups, or channel groups from a TeamSpeak 3 server by specifying the resource type.

Instructions

List server resources: online clients, channels, server groups, or channel groups

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": {
      "resource": "<resource>"
    },
    "name": "server_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`resource`	Yes	Resource type to list

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds one useful qualifier ('online' clients) but says nothing about permissions, scoping, pagination, or completeness of the listing, leaving the mutation/safety profile and result behavior undisclosed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and the available resource types. No wasted text, though it is perhaps terse enough to omit useful context.

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 one-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the listable resources but omits return shape, permissions, and pagination. It is complete enough to call correctly but not to anticipate results.

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% and the enum already enumerates the four resource values, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of meaning by qualifying clients as 'online', but otherwise restates the enum.

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 (List) and resource (server resources) and enumerates the four listable types, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like server_search or server_info, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 and no mention of the alternative tools (server_search, server_info). The reader can infer it is for enumeration, but nothing tells the agent when this is preferable to the sibling search/info tools.

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