Telegram MCP Server & Channel Monitor

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating this is a write operation but not destructive. The description adds the key behavioral detail '포워드 마크 없이' (without forward marks), which is valuable context not in annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if messages fail to copy.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, zero wasted words. Efficiently communicates the essential function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 this is a write operation (annotations show readOnlyHint=false) with 3 required sub-parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the core behavior but lacks details about prerequisites, error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools. The output schema will handle return values, but the description doesn't provide enough context for safe usage.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description doesn't mention any parameters at all, failing to compensate for the schema gap. However, with only 1 parameter (a nested object with 3 sub-parameters), the baseline is 3 since the schema structure itself provides some clarity.

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 action ('복사하여 전송합니다' - copy and send) and resource ('여러 메시지' - multiple messages), specifying it's for multiple messages without forward marks. It distinguishes from 'telegram_copy_message' (singular) and 'telegram_forward_messages' (with forward marks), but doesn't explicitly mention sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'telegram_copy_message' (singular), 'telegram_forward_messages', or 'telegram_send_message'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate compared to other message-sending tools.

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