Pins a specified message in a Telegram chat using the chat ID or @username and message ID, with optional silent notification and business connection settings.
Pin a message in a chat.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chat_id | Yes | Chat ID or @username | |
| message_id | Yes | ||
| disable_notification | No | ||
| business_connection_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide. It does not mention requirements (e.g., admin rights), side effects (e.g., replacing an existing pin), or the effect of disable_notification. Annotations declare it is a mutation and idempotent, but the description contributes no extra disclosure.
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 filler, but it is essentially a rephrasing of the tool name and provides no additional structure or context. It is not overly verbose, but it is under-specified for the tool's complexity.
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 four parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks usage context, side effects, parameter clarifications, and any mention of related operations. The agent would need additional information to use the tool correctly beyond the basic action.
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 only 25% (chat_id has a description). The tool description 'Pin a message in a chat' adds no meaning for message_id, disable_notification, or business_connection_id. With low schema coverage, the description needs to compensate but does not.
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 tool pins a message in a chat, using a specific verb ('pin') and resource ('message in a chat'). It distinguishes from sibling unpin tools (e.g., unpin_chat_message), so there is no ambiguity about its function.
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 such as unpin_chat_message or other chat modification tools. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or context that would help an agent choose this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.