Telegram MCP Server & Channel Monitor

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, stating it retrieves member count and may return an error. It doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or specific error conditions, but it doesn't contradict the annotations either.

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, Args, and Returns sections. It's concise with no wasted sentences, though the Korean language might add slight complexity for non-Korean agents. The information is front-loaded with the main purpose stated first.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is somewhat complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but lacks usage guidelines, detailed behavioral context, and error handling specifics, which could be important for a read operation in a messaging platform.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that explains 'chat_id' as '조회할 채팅 ID' (chat ID to retrieve), adding basic semantics. However, it doesn't clarify format constraints, valid ranges, or examples, leaving gaps in understanding.

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: '채팅/그룹/채널의 총 멤버(구독자) 수를 조회합니다' (Retrieves the total number of members/subscribers in a chat/group/channel). It specifies the verb '조회합니다' (retrieve) and resource '멤버 수' (member count). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'telegram_get_chat', which might retrieve chat metadata rather than just member count.

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 any prerequisites, such as needing appropriate permissions or being in a specific context, nor does it compare it to sibling tools like 'telegram_get_chat' that might offer related functionality. Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description.

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