One public channel post with its text, media and views. (1 credit)
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": {
"url": "<url>"
},
"name": "telegram_post"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Post URL, e.g. https://t.me/durov/123. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: only public channels are addressable and the response includes text, media and views — meaningful return-content disclosure given there is no output schema. It also surfaces the 1-credit cost, which matters for an agent tracking quota.
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, front-loaded clauses with no filler; the core object ('one public channel post') comes first and the credit note trails as a secondary cost cue. Slightly telegraphic, but every word carries 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?
For a simple single-resource getter with one fully documented parameter, the description covers scope (public channels), payload contents (text, media, views) and cost, which is what an agent needs to call it. Remaining gaps — behavior on deleted/private posts or partial media — are minor at this complexity level.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a concrete example URL, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing further about URL form (canonical vs. t.me/s/ variants) — baseline 3 for a fully documented single param.
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+resource: fetching a single public channel post and returning its text, media and views. This implicitly separates it from list-style siblings like telegram_channel_posts and telegram_channel, but neither sibling is named, so the differentiation is left to inference.
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?
'One ... post' implies the single-post use case, and 'public channel' signals a scope restriction, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no pointer to telegram_channel_posts for listing. Usage must be inferred from the wording.
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.