Telegram MCP Server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context about what data is returned (last sync date, total messages, last message ID), which isn't in the annotations, but doesn't mention rate limits, auth needs, or error conditions. With annotations providing core behavioral traits, this extra context warrants a score above baseline.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word adds value—no repetition or fluff—making it highly efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides good context: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, and what data to expect. However, it doesn't detail the return format (e.g., JSON structure) or potential errors, leaving a minor gap given the lack of output schema.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'chat_id' parameter fully documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 when no additional param info is given.

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 ('Check the sync status') and resource ('for a chat'), listing the exact data returned (last sync date, total synced messages, last message ID). It distinguishes from siblings like 'telegram_sync_chat' (which performs a sync) by focusing on status retrieval rather than execution.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Useful before deciding whether to run a new sync'), providing clear context for its application. It implies an alternative (using 'telegram_sync_chat' for actual syncing) without naming it directly, but the guidance is specific and actionable.

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