Create a Telegram sticker set owned by a specified user by providing a user ID, set name, and title; optionally include stickers, set type, and repainting needs.
Create a new sticker set owned by a user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| title | Yes | ||
| user_id | Yes | ||
| stickers | No | ||
| sticker_type | No | ||
| needs_repainting | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation, and the description's 'create' is consistent. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations—no failure conditions, ownership requirements, or side effects are disclosed.
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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and easy to scan, though it under-specifies—this is more a completeness concern than a conciseness one.
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?
The tool has six parameters (three required) and no output schema, but the description provides none of the needed context. It doesn't mention return values or the meaning of key parameters like stickers and sticker_type, making it inadequate for reliable invocation.
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%, and the description does not explain any of the six parameters. It only loosely implies user ownership via 'owned by a user', but name, title, stickers, sticker_type, and needs_repainting remain entirely undefined.
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 create operation for a new sticker set owned by a user, which matches the tool name. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from related sibling tools like add_sticker_to_set or set_sticker_set_title, relying on the verb 'create' to imply distinction.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative sticker-set operations such as upload_sticker_file, add_sticker_to_set, or set_sticker_set_title. The description gives only a generic action without any context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.