Manage scheduled messages in a chat: list pending messages or cancel specific ones by providing their message IDs.
Messages scheduled for later in a chat. Pass cancel_ids to cancel them.
Args: chat: chat id, @username, exact title or "me". limit: how many to list. cancel_ids: message ids to cancel instead of listing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chat | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cancel_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description adds that cancel_ids switches the action from listing to cancellation, which is a meaningful behavioral detail. It does not disclose side effects beyond cancellation, but no contradiction exists.
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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a concise Args list with no filler.
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 dual-mode list/cancel tool, the description covers all parameters and mode selection. It omits return format details and cancellation irreversibility, but annotations and simple schema keep the gap minor.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining chat formats ('chat id, @username, exact title or "me"'), limit ('how many to list'), and cancel_ids ('cancel instead of listing').
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 identifies the tool as handling messages scheduled for later in a chat, and 'cancel_ids: message ids to cancel instead of listing' implies the default action is listing. This distinguishes it from related tools like tg_schedule (creating scheduled messages), though it never states the main verb explicitly.
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 provides clear context by describing two modes: listing scheduled messages and canceling them by passing cancel_ids. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.