Sends a daily Telegram digest of new freelance leads ranked by match, with a Russian brief, English summary, and action buttons.
Push top NEW with RU brief + SHORT EN (Telegram buttons).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that output is delivered to Telegram with interactive buttons (a real external side effect), but says nothing about whether this sends messages repeatedly, requires a configured Telegram channel, is idempotent, or costs anything.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no padding, so nothing is wasted. However, the extreme telegraphic compression (RU/SHORT EN) trades away clarity rather than achieving efficient structure.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and with zero parameters the schema is trivial. But with no annotations and an undecoded description, an agent cannot infer what 'top NEW' means, what the brief contains, or what side effects occur.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-related gaps exist.
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 verb 'Push' is identifiable, but the resource is compressed into jargon: 'top NEW', 'RU brief', 'SHORT EN' are not decoded anywhere. It is close to restating the name (morning_digest) with unexplained abbreviations, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as evening_followup.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given. The 'morning' in the name and in the description hints at a daily cadence, but there is no statement of prerequisites, no contrast with evening_followup or brief_lead, and no conditions under which the agent should or should not call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.