Configures a Telegram bot webhook URL to receive incoming updates at your endpoint.
Set a webhook URL for receiving updates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| ip_address | No | ||
| certificate | No | ||
| secret_token | No | ||
| allowed_updates | No | ||
| max_connections | No | ||
| drop_pending_updates | 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 idempotency and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds no extra context such as side effects, endpoint requirements, or error conditions. It describes only the essential action without behavioral 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 entire description is a single front-loaded sentence with no repetition or filler. It is short but loses the opportunity to convey essential context; however, for what it states, it is concise.
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 a complex schema, numerous sibling tools, and no output schema, this one-line description is grossly insufficient. It fails to mention return values, error scenarios, or the implications of setting a webhook (e.g., replacing existing configuration).
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 defines 7 parameters with no descriptions, and the tool description does not elaborate on any of them. Even the 'url' parameter is not explained beyond being a URL, leaving room for ambiguity around format or security requirements.
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 uses a specific verb 'Set' and identifies the resource 'webhook URL', clearly distinguishing it from webhook querying (get_webhook_info) and removal (delete_webhook). It conveys the core action unambiguously.
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 get_webhook_info or delete_webhook. The description lacks any mention of configuration workflows or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.