Telegram MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world behavior, covering safety and operational traits. The description adds useful context about the prerequisite ('Requires a previous telegram_sync_chat run'), which is not captured in annotations, but does not disclose other behavioral aspects like rate limits, error handling, or pagination. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by prerequisite and filtering details in a second sentence. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 (list operation with filtering), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and 100% schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It includes prerequisite context and filtering guidance. However, without an output schema, it does not describe return values (e.g., format of listed media), leaving a minor gap in completeness.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (chat_id and media_type with enum). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning filtering by type, which is already detailed in the schema's enum and description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all media files that have been downloaded for a chat'), specifying the scope ('synced media' from a previous sync operation). It distinguishes from siblings like telegram_download_media (which downloads) and telegram_list_chats (which lists chats, not media), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 clear context for when to use it ('Requires a previous telegram_sync_chat run') and includes filtering options ('Filter by type'), which helps guide usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., telegram_get_history might overlap in some contexts), so it lacks full exclusion or comparative guidance.

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