teamspeak3-mcp

sgroup_perm

Add, remove, or list permissions for a TeamSpeak 3 server group. Provide group ID and action to manage access controls.

Instructions

Manage permissions for a server group: add, remove, or list

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": {
      "group_id": "<group_id>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "sgroup_perm"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`skip`	No	Skip flag
`value`	No	Permission value (for add)
`action`	Yes	Action to perform
`negate`	No	Negate flag
`group_id`	Yes	Server group ID
`permission`	No	Permission name (for add/remove)

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but says nothing about required privileges, whether add/remove are idempotent, whether changes are reversible, or what happens with negate/skip. The 'negate' and 'skip' flags ('Negate flag', 'Skip flag') are opaque and never explained here.

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 front-loaded sentence with the scope first and actions last, no wasted words. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves important semantics unstated rather than being excessive.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A mutation tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema needs more: the description omits permission requirements, effect of the negation/skip flags, and return behavior. An agent can pick the action but not predict the result or preconditions.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema documents group_id, action, permission, and value. The description repeats action values but adds no meaning for negate/skip/value beyond the (tautological) schema text.

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?

Names a specific verb (manage) plus resource (server group permissions) and enumerates the three actions, which separates it from sibling permission tools like cgroup_perm and client_perm by scope. It stops short of explicitly contrasting those siblings.

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 statement of when to choose this tool over cgroup_perm, client_perm, or perm_list/perm_overview; usage is only implied by the 'server group' scope. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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