telegram_add_contactSave a Telegram user as a contact using their @username or user ID and a first name. Use it to add contacts when managing Telegram from an agent.
Save a Telegram user as a contact by @username or user id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | Yes | ||
| phone | No | ||
| lastName | No | ||
| firstName | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, open-world operation, and the description only restates the save-contact behavior. It does not disclose permission requirements, duplicate-contact behavior, whether phone is needed, or what happens on success.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the core action and identifier forms front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler text.
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?
For a mutation tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It leaves required parameter semantics, side effects, and failure/duplicate behavior undocumented.
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% for four parameters. The description usefully clarifies that 'user' accepts an @username or user id, but it does not explain the required 'firstName' or the optional 'phone' and 'lastName' parameters.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Save ... as a contact') and clarifies that the user can be identified by @username or user id. It is clear against most siblings, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby contact/user tools such as get_contacts, delete_contacts, or search_users.
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?
It explains the acceptable user identifier formats but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_users, get_contacts, or send_contact. No prerequisites, duplicate-handling conditions, or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.