Create a new TeamSpeak 3 server group by providing its name and optionally choosing a group type (template, regular, or query).
Create a new server group
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name for the new server group | |
| type | No | Group type (0=template, 1=regular, 2=query) |
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 behavioral burden. It says only that a group is created, without mentioning permissions required, whether the name must be unique, what side effects occur, or what is returned.
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 zero waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple creation tool and contains no redundant phrasing.
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?
The input schema fully covers the parameters and required field, so the description is minimally sufficient for invocation. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits behavioral context such as permissions and creation effects.
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 two parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new server group'. It distinguishes the action from destructive siblings like sgroup_delete, but does not explicitly differentiate it from other creation tools such as cgroup_create.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it differs from alternatives like cgroup_create or sgroup_perm. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.