Create a chat folder with specified chats to organize your Telegram conversations. Group related chats for easier navigation.
Create a chat folder with the given chats
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": "folder_new"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't say whether creation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate folder names, whether the chats must already exist, or what permissions are needed. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.
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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the dangling 'with the given chats' clause carries no usable information given the empty schema.
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 create operation with no output schema the description is minimally sufficient, but with no annotations and an empty parameter schema it leaves the agent without any information on chat membership, permissions, or error behavior.
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 schema declares zero properties, so there is no parameter documentation to add to. However, the description references 'the given chats', implying an input that the schema does not expose, which is a real mismatch rather than useful semantic enrichment.
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+resource ('Create a chat folder'), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like folder_rm (delete) and folders (list). The trailing phrase 'with the given chats' is ambiguous because no chat parameter exists in the schema, which slightly muddies the stated 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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as folder_rm or folders. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the creation counterpart to folder_rm.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.