Delete a TeamSpeak 3 server group by ID. Use force=true to remove it even when clients are assigned to the group.
Delete a server group. Use force=true to remove even if clients are assigned
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force | No | Force deletion even if clients are assigned to this group | |
| group_id | Yes | Server group ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the blocking behavior when clients are assigned, but never states that deletion is irreversible, what happens to memberships/permissions, or what permission level is required for a destructive operation.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded before the conditional modifier. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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?
Simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, so return values need no explanation. However, for an unannotated destructive operation the description omits irreversibility and authorization context, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether to call it.
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 both parameters are already documented, including force's meaning and its default of false. The description's restatement of force adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource ('Delete a server group') and is unambiguous. It is easily distinguished from the sibling sgroup_create and readable without opening the schema, though it never names a sibling explicitly to sharpen the distinction.
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?
It gives one conditional instruction ('Use force=true to remove even if clients are assigned'), which implies the default path fails when clients exist. There is no guidance on prerequisites, permissions, or when to prefer an alternative such as reassigning clients first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.