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 that it retrieves both 'file information' and 'download URL', which provides useful context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Korean that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes all necessary elements without waste. No extraneous information or redundancy is present.

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 (one parameter), annotations covering safety (read-only, non-destructive), and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what the tool does and the key input. However, it lacks usage guidelines and richer parameter semantics, which are minor gaps in this context.

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%, with one parameter (file_id) documented only with a title and type in the schema. The description mentions 'file_id' as the input but doesn't add semantic details like format examples, source, or constraints. Since coverage is low, the description partially compensates by naming the parameter, but more detail would be helpful. Baseline adjusted for low coverage.

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: 'file_id로 파일 정보와 다운로드 URL을 조회합니다' (retrieves file information and download URL using file_id). It specifies the verb (retrieve/lookup), resource (file information and download URL), and key input (file_id). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'telegram_get_chat' or 'telegram_get_me', which also retrieve information but for different resources.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid file_id from a message), exclusions, or comparisons to other file-related tools (none exist in the sibling list, but general usage context is missing). The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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