Check Telegram connection status and session health to verify the integration is active and troubleshoot connection issues.
Get connection status and session health
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get connection status and session health' suggests a read-only operation but does not disclose what specific values are returned, whether it performs any underlying checks, or whether session health information could be stale or require an active session.
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, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no redundant wording or filler, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.
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 zero-parameter status check, this description provides a minimal but acceptable level of context. However, with no output schema or annotations, the agent does not know the shape or semantics of the returned status/health data, which leaves some ambiguity about what to expect from the tool.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema adds no complexity. The description is not required to explain parameter behavior, and the baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for parameters to add.
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 ('Get') and resource ('connection status and session health'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but no sibling appears to target connection status, so the purpose is reasonably distinct.
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 implies this is the tool to check connectivity and session state, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives or any related context. For a zero-parameter status utility, the implied usage is relatively clear, but no direct usage guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.