Telegram MCP Server & Channel Monitor

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, covering basic safety. The description adds context about copying without forward marks, which is useful behavioral detail not in annotations. However, it does not disclose other traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, resulting in moderate transparency.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, followed by Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded and efficient, with no wasted sentences. Minor improvement could be made by integrating the purpose more seamlessly, but overall it is concise and organized.

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, annotations covering safety, and an output schema (Returns section), the description is mostly complete. It explains the action, parameters, and return value. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context or error examples to fully guide the agent, slightly reducing 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It includes an 'Args' section detailing each parameter's purpose (e.g., '원본 채팅 ID' for from_chat_id), adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema. However, it lacks details on parameter formats or constraints, preventing a perfect score.

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: '메시지 내용을 포워드 마크 없이 복사하여 다른 채팅에 전송합니다' (copy message content without forward mark and send to another chat). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'telegram_forward_message' by emphasizing the absence of forward attribution, making the purpose explicit 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 implies usage for copying messages without forward marks, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'telegram_forward_message' or 'telegram_copy_messages'. It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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