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, confirming this is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds that forwarding includes '출처 표시 포함' (source attribution included), which is useful behavioral context not covered by annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions beyond the generic return statement.

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 clear sections (description, Args, Returns). It's concise at 4 sentences total, with no redundant information. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, though the parameter descriptions could be integrated more smoothly.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description provides basic parameter semantics and mentions source attribution. However, it lacks details on authentication, error handling, or comparison to sibling tools. The output schema exists, so describing return values isn't needed, but more behavioral context would help.

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%, meaning parameter descriptions in the schema are empty. The description's Args section provides Korean descriptions for all three parameters (원본 채팅 ID, 전달 대상 채팅 ID, 전달할 메시지 ID), which adds essential semantic meaning. However, it doesn't explain format constraints (e.g., valid chat ID ranges) or provide examples.

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 tool's purpose: '한 채팅에서 다른 채팅으로 메시지를 포워드(전달)합니다' (forwards a message from one chat to another). It specifies the verb (forward/전달) and resource (message/메시지). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'telegram_copy_message' or 'telegram_forward_messages', which perform similar operations.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'telegram_copy_message' (which might preserve original formatting differently) or 'telegram_forward_messages' (which forwards multiple messages). There's no context about prerequisites, permissions, or typical use cases.

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