Telegram MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that the tool returns 'chat info or null if not found', which clarifies the response format and null handling. Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and idempotency, so the description appropriately focuses on output behavior without contradiction.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core functionality and follow with outcome details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and behavior 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 the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, usage, and behavioral output. However, it lacks details on error cases or limitations (e.g., search scope or performance), which could enhance completeness for a search operation.

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 description mentions the query parameter ('by name, username, or ID'), but the input schema already provides 100% coverage with a detailed description including examples. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Search for a specific chat'), the resource ('chat'), and the search criteria ('by name, username, or ID'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'telegram_list_chats' (which lists all chats) by focusing on targeted search with a query parameter.

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 this tool (when searching for a specific chat by identifiers) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify that 'telegram_list_chats' should be used for browsing all chats without a specific target.

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