Set a user's score in a Telegram game using user ID and score, with optional chat, message, inline message, and force parameters.
Set the score of a user in a game.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force | No | ||
| score | Yes | ||
| chat_id | No | ||
| user_id | Yes | ||
| message_id | No | ||
| inline_message_id | No | ||
| disable_edit_message | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as the effect on a game message, required user participation, or error conditions, so it offers no value beyond the structured annotations.
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 clear sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters and no schema descriptions. It is concise but not appropriately sized, meriting a middle score.
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?
With no output schema and a complex set of parameters, the description should provide more context about when and how to use this tool. It only states the basic purpose, omitting parameter semantics, alternative guidance, and behavioral details, making it incomplete for real-world 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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of the 7 parameters (e.g., force, chat_id, message_id). The description only implies user and score, leaving the majority of parameters completely unspecified, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 identifies the action (set score) and the resource (a user in a game), distinguishing it from related tools like get_game_high_scores. It lacks explicit mention of message/chat context or differentiation from alternative scores, so it doesn't reach 5.
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 send_game or get_game_high_scores. There are no examples, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.