Telegram MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide comprehensive safety information (readOnlyHint: true, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true). The description adds valuable context about what information is returned (chat ID, title, type, username) and the purpose of finding chat_id for other tools. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond the structured data.

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 distinct purposes: the first explains what the tool does and what it returns, the second provides usage guidance. There's zero wasted language and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 read-only listing tool with comprehensive annotations and a well-documented single parameter, the description provides excellent context about what's returned and when to use it. The only minor gap is the lack of output schema, but the description adequately describes the return format. It's nearly complete for this tool's complexity level.

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 the schema already fully documents the single 'limit' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('Telegram dialogs (chats, groups, channels)'), and distinguishes this from siblings by specifying it returns chat ID, title, type, and username. It explicitly mentions this is for finding chat_id needed for other tools, which differentiates it from other list/search tools.

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 ('Use this to find the chat_id needed for other tools'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like telegram_find_chat (likely for specific searches) and telegram_list_media (for media content). This gives the agent clear context about the primary use case.

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