Fast MCP Telegram

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description adds significant context beyond the annotations: it explains the tool is destructive (edits existing message), idempotent (re-editing same text yields same result), and mentions that it only works on own messages. It also describes the success and error return formats. The annotations already indicate destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description elaborates on what that means in practice.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is structured logically: what it does, constraints, success/error outputs, usage guidance, and a link to full docs. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given that there is no explicit output schema provided, the description compensates by detailing return values and error formats. It covers all key aspects: constraints, intended usage, output structure, error handling, and a reference link. This is fully sufficient for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with clear descriptions for each of the 4 parameters, including enums and defaults. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states that the tool replaces the text of an existing message in a Telegram chat, specifying it only works on messages sent by the authenticated account and cannot edit media or other attributes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_message by explicitly saying 'Use edit_message to update a previously sent message; use send_message to create new ones.'

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (to update a previously sent message) and when to use send_message (to create new ones). It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the stated constraints, but those constraints (only own messages, text only) are clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds behavioral details: search mode depends on parameters, success returns a dict with 'chats' key. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise (3-4 sentences), front-loaded with the main action, and includes essential behavioral notes without redundancy.

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?

Given 7 parameters, different search modes, and an output schema referenced, the description adequately explains behavior and parameter roles, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining how parameters affect search mode but doesn't provide new info beyond schema for individual 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 clearly states the tool finds users/groups/channels by name, username, or phone, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_messages_globally which search messages. The verb 'Find' and resource 'chats' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explains when to use global search vs dialog list based on parameters (query required for global, dates/folder for dialog list). It provides context for parameter combinations but does not explicitly exclude alternative tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds that the result is an info dict and that forum chats may include topics up to the specified limit, providing some additional behavioral context. However, it does not disclose error handling, permissions, or rate limits.

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 three sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second summarizes success output and special forum behavior, and the third provides a documentation link. It is front-loaded, efficient, and free of redundant content.

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 simple two-parameter tool with high schema coverage, full annotations, and an existing output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the purpose, return type, and special forum behavior without needing to explain return values in detail. The documentation link also supplements any missing specifics.

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 coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by specifying that the target can be a user, bot, group, or channel, which clarifies the chat_id parameter domain. It also reinforces the topics_limit behavior for forums, going slightly beyond the schema descriptions.

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 ('Load') and identifies the resource ('profile and metadata for one user, bot, group, or channel'), making the tool's function explicit. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_messages and find_chats by specifying it targets a single chat entity.

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 when to use the tool (when you need profile/metadata for a specific chat) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or references to sibling tools are provided, so guidance is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's extra constraints (mutual exclusivity, output fields) add useful but not critical context. No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences front-loading purpose and modes, with a link to full docs. Efficient but could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

Covers all modes, constraints, and output expectations. Has output schema and documentation link. For a tool with 10 parameters and multiple modes, it provides sufficient guidance.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds value by explaining usage modes and mutual exclusivity, going beyond raw schema descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states it reads or searches messages in a chat, listing specific modes (browse latest, search text, fetch by ids, load replies). Distinguishes from sibling 'search_messages_globally' by focusing on a single chat.

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?

Explicitly states not to combine message_ids with query or reply_to_id, and mentions successful output fields. Provides a documentation link for more details. Could be more direct about when to use siblings, but context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate openWorldHint and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: destructive methods are blocked unless allow_dangerous=true, and success returns either an API result dict or normalized error. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose, safety/success behavior, and a documentation link. Information is front-loaded and free of fluff.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering open-world/destructive traits, the description fully addresses necessary context for a low-level fallback tool. It clearly states the tool's scope, safety guardrail, and result format, plus a link to full docs.

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 already covers all parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds context beyond the schema by connecting allow_dangerous to the dangerous-methods mechanism, enhancing the agent's understanding of when and how to set it.

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?

Description clearly states it invokes low-level Telegram MTProto methods not wrapped by other tools, distinguishing it from the sibling high-level tools. The verb 'invoke' and resource 'MTProto' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly says to use for methods not wrapped by other tools, positioning it as a fallback. It also provides critical guidance about dangerous methods requiring allow_dangerous=true, which helps the agent decide when this tool is appropriate versus safer alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses a non-obvious behavior (global search ignores include_total_count) and states the success return shape ('message list and metadata dict'). This adds context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations. No contradictions exist with the annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the core purpose, followed by key search behavior and a documentation link. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the 8-parameter schema with full descriptions, the description covers global scope, return format, and a behavioral caveat, plus a documentation link for deeper reference. It's sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing additional information.

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 coverage is 100% with rich parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description restates query semantics ('Comma-separated query terms') and summarizes filter options, but doesn't add significant new parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. The include_total_count caveat is a small extra.

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 clearly states the action ('Search all Telegram chats at once') and resource (messages across all chats). The parenthetical 'not scoped to one chat' explicitly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_messages, giving it a distinct and unambiguous purpose.

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 implies use when needing cross-chat search by stating 'Search all Telegram chats at once' and contrasting with scoped search. It also provides a specific behavioral caveat ('Global search ignores include_total_count'). However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for single-chat search, so the guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: auto-detected parse_mode, file attachment support (URLs, paths, data URIs), reply-to behavior for forums and channel discussion groups, and the outcome format (success/error dicts). No contradiction with annotations.

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 information-dense but not overly verbose. It front-loads the main action and then logically organizes supporting details. Slightly longer than necessary but efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, enum, multiple modes) and the presence of an output schema that documents return values, the description covers all key behavioral aspects, usage alternatives, and edge cases (channel posts, forum topics). It also references external documentation.

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?

All 5 parameters are documented in the schema with detailed descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds extra context, such as the interaction between reply_to_id and channel posts, and file type restrictions. This goes beyond the schema, meriting a score above baseline 3.

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 starts with 'Send text and optional file attachments to a Telegram chat,' clearly stating the action and target. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning edit_message for modifications and send_message_to_phone for targeting phone numbers.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use send_message to create new messages; use edit_message to modify existing ones. Use send_message_to_phone when targeting a phone number instead of a chat_id.' Also explains behavior for channel posts with reply_to_id.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide destructiveHint and openWorldHint. The description adds context about creating temporary contacts and returning contact_was_new/contact_removed, which are side effects beyond annotations. However, it does not detail error cases or all behavioral nuances.

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?

Two sentences plus a reference link. Information is front-loaded: first sentence states the core purpose. Every word serves a purpose; no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the high-level flow and return values. It relies on the schema for parameter details, which is acceptable, but could briefly mention interaction between parameters like files and message.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents all parameters thoroughly. The description provides overall flow context but does not add additional meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema already offers.

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 clearly states the action ('Send') and the resource ('to a phone number'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'send_message' by specifying the target is a phone number rather than a chat ID. It also mentions creating temporary contacts, which is specific.

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 usage for sending to phone numbers but does not explicitly compare with siblings or provide when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance. The link to full documentation exists but the description itself lacks direct usage guidelines.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.