List all sticker packs available in your Telegram account to quickly browse and identify which sets you can use.
List available sticker packs
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_sticker_sets"
}
}| 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. 'List' strongly implies a read-only retrieval operation with no side effects, which is helpful, but the description does not clarify what 'available' means, how results are ordered, or what the return structure looks like.
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 compact phrase with no waste, and the verb is front-loaded. It is appropriately minimal for a parameterless list operation.
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 no parameters, no output schema, and no close sibling tools, the main gaps are the response shape and the precise scope of 'available.' Still, an agent can confidently invoke this tool based solely on the description; the missing details are minor for a simple list operation.
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 and the schema is effectively complete, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain. The no-parameter baseline of 4 applies here.
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 ('List') and a clear resource ('available sticker packs'), so the tool's operation is immediately obvious. It is also the only sticker-set tool among the siblings, making it easy to distinguish from message, chat, and contact tools.
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 intended use is implicitly clear—call when a user wants to see available sticker packs—but the description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Since no sibling tool targets sticker sets, the lack of alternative routing is less problematic, but still not explicitly addressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.