Sends Markdown-formatted real-time notifications to Telegram chats, users, or channels for AI agent alerts and operational messaging.
Send a real-time notification or message to a Telegram chat, user, or channel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Message body to send (supports Markdown) | |
| chat_id | Yes | Telegram chat ID, user ID or @channelusername | |
| disable_notification | No | Send silently without sound alert (default: false) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and falls short. It claims 'real-time' delivery but says nothing about auth/permission requirements, rate limits, Markdown parsing caveats, failure behavior, or whether sending is idempotent or irreversible.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, so every word earns its place. It is efficient, though arguably too sparse for a tool with delivery and permission implications.
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 side-effecting messaging tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is only minimally adequate. An agent learns what it sends but not the operational constraints, permission prerequisites, or delivery outcomes it needs to call it reliably.
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 100%, so the schema already documents chat_id, text, and disable_notification. The description adds no format details, ID examples, or channel-username nuances beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline of 3 correct.
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?
States a specific verb (send), resource (message/notification), and target (Telegram chat, user, or channel), so the action is unambiguous. The platform name implicitly separates it from send_discord_alert, but the description never acknowledges the sibling tools or contrasts behavior with them.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. It does not mention prerequisites (bot membership, chat permissions) or address when to pick this over send_discord_alert. The 'notification or message' phrasing only loosely implies a use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.