Connect an agent to Telegram via a bot. Requires a bot token from @BotFather.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | The agent ID or name | |
| bot_token | Yes | Telegram bot token from @BotFather |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, covering basic safety and retry semantics. The description adds the authentication requirement (bot token) and clarifies the connection mechanism, but does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing connections.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word is purposeful. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool with only two parameters.
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 straightforward connection tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and prerequisite. It could mention whether the connection is idempotent or replaces existing ones, but the annotations and simple nature make it largely complete.
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%, with both parameters (agent_id and bot_token) fully described. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides; it merely reiterates the token requirement.
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 clearly states a specific action ('Connect an agent to Telegram') and identifies the resource (Telegram bot). It distinguishes from sibling tools like kopern_connect_slack and kopern_connect_whatsapp by naming the exact channel.
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 description implies usage for Telegram connections and provides a key prerequisite ('Requires a bot token from @BotFather'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the tool name and sibling list make the context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (create vs list vs get vs run vs connect). A few potential overlaps exist (deploy_template vs create_agent, import_agent vs create_agent, grade_prompt vs run_grading) but descriptions clarify the differences.
All tools share the 'kopern_' prefix and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (create_*, get_*, list_*, run_*, connect_*). The exception is 'kopern_compliance_report', which uses a noun phrase without a verb, breaking the otherwise consistent naming.
With 31 tools, this exceeds the 25-tool threshold for well-scoped servers. While the domain is broad (agent lifecycle, grading, pipelines, teams, connectors), the sheer number of tools feels heavy and could be consolidated (e.g., a single 'manage_memory' tool already bundles multiple actions).
Core agent management (create, read, update, delete, list) is solid, and grading has suite creation, execution, and results. However, pipelines and teams lack get/update/delete operations, connectors only support connect (no disconnect), and there's no way to manage grading suites beyond creation and running. This leaves notable gaps for secondary resources.
