Submit a knowledge document change for Telegram owner approval when direct write access is unavailable, so edits commit only after human sign-off.
PROPOSE a change to a knowledge document (no direct write). The owner approves via Telegram; only then is it committed. Use this when you do not have direct write permission.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| commit_message | Yes | ||
| expected_git_commit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which is a thin profile. The description adds real behavioral context: the write is deferred, an owner approves via Telegram, and only then is it committed. It does not say what happens on rejection or how long approval takes, but the deferred-commit model is the key trait.
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 short sentences, each earning its place, with the no-direct-write constraint and approval flow front-loaded. No waste or repetition of the tool name.
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?
Behavioral flow is well covered, but with no output schema the agent has no idea what a successful propose returns (a task id? a pending-approval handle?), and the undocumented params leave gaps. Adequate but incomplete for a mutation-style 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, and the description provides no per-parameter meaning at all. Names like 'content' and 'commit_message' are mostly inferable, but 'expected_git_commit' is an optimistic-concurrency token whose semantics are entirely unexplained in both schema and description.
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 (PROPOSE a change) and resource (knowledge document), and immediately clarifies scope with '(no direct write)', which separates it from the write_document sibling. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.
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 gives the selecting condition: 'Use this when you do not have direct write permission.' It does not name write_document as the alternative, but the condition is clear enough to route correctly between the two.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.