Block MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Send a notification' implies a write operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, rate limits, delivery guarantees, error conditions, or what happens if the chat isn't properly configured. The mention of 'configured Telegram Chat' hints at prerequisites but doesn't elaborate.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and its single parameter. The Args section is clearly separated, making it easy to parse. There's minimal wasted verbiage, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the parameter explanation more seamlessly.

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?

Given this is a write operation with no annotations, 1 parameter, and an output schema exists (which means return values are documented elsewhere), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter meaning but lacks important context about behavioral characteristics, error handling, and differentiation from sibling tools that would make it fully complete for agent use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides the parameter name 'message' and explains it as 'The text to send to your phone,' which adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't cover constraints like message length limits, formatting options, or special characters that might be relevant for Telegram messages.

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 the action ('Send a notification') and target ('to the configured Telegram Chat'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'telegram_reply' or 'telegram_read_messages', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'telegram_reply' or other notification methods. It mentions 'configured Telegram Chat' which implies some setup but doesn't specify when this tool is appropriate versus other communication methods.

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