Telegram MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide: it specifies the return value ('Returns file path and metadata'), which isn't covered by annotations. The annotations already indicate it's not read-only, is open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to repeat those aspects but usefully complements them with output information.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each serve a distinct purpose: the first states the core functionality and usage context, the second specifies the return value. There's no wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the primary action.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description provides good contextual completeness by explaining the purpose, usage guidelines, and return values. The annotations cover safety and behavioral traits well, and while an output schema would be ideal, the description adequately compensates by specifying what's returned.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents all three parameters (chat_id, message_id, output_dir). The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline expectation without providing extra value in this dimension.

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 specific action ('Download media from a specific message') and resource ('media'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like telegram_list_media (which lists) and telegram_sync_chat (which performs bulk operations). The phrase 'targeted downloads instead of a full sync' explicitly differentiates its purpose from alternatives.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('for targeted downloads') and when not to use it ('instead of a full sync'), directly referencing the sibling tool telegram_sync_chat as an alternative for bulk operations. This gives clear context for selection among related tools.

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