Stops an active poll in a Telegram chat using the chat ID or @username and the poll's message ID. Use it to close voting and finalize results.
Stop a poll in a chat.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chat_id | Yes | Chat ID or @username | |
| message_id | Yes | ||
| reply_markup | 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?
Annotations already indicate a mutating but non-destructive, idempotent operation, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not disclose ownership restrictions, effects on voters, or what happens if the poll is already closed.
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, front-loaded six-word sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly 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?
Even for a simple tool, critical context is missing: the poll must be active and sent by the bot, and the optional parameters' purpose is unexplained. Annotations and schema partially compensate, but significant gaps remain.
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% as only chat_id has a description. The description does not clarify message_id, reply_markup, or business_connection_id, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage.
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 ('Stop') and resource ('a poll') plus location ('in a chat'), clearly identifying the action. It distinguishes itself from siblings like send_poll or edit_message_text.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as the poll being active or sent by the bot. The description merely states the action without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.