Telegram MCP Server & Channel Monitor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains how offset prevents duplicate message retrieval ('offset을 사용하면 이미 처리한 메시지를 다시 가져오지 않습니다') and mentions the periodic scheduling use case. It doesn't describe rate limits or authentication needs, but provides useful implementation guidance that annotations don't cover.

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: purpose statement, usage guidance, parameter explanations, and return value description. Each sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the parameter explanations more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient with no wasted words.

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 read-only tool with good annotations and an output schema (implied by the Returns section), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage pattern, parameter semantics, and return format. The output description ('메시지 목록 JSON. 각 항목에 update_id, chat_id, sender, text 포함. 메시지 없으면 "새 메시지 없음" 반환') adequately explains what to expect, compensating for the lack of formal output schema in the context signals.

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 carries full burden for parameter documentation. It successfully explains both parameters: offset ('마지막으로 처리한 update_id + 1') and limit ('가져올 메시지 수'). The description adds crucial semantic context about offset preventing duplicate processing, which isn't in the schema. However, it doesn't mention the limit's maximum value (100) or that offset is optional, though the schema covers these.

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: '텔레그램 봇으로 수신된 새 메시지를 가져옵니다' (Fetch new messages received by a Telegram bot). It specifies the exact action (fetch/retrieve) and resource (new messages), and distinguishes itself from siblings like send_message or delete_message by focusing on retrieval rather than sending or modifying messages.

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 clear usage context: '스케줄 태스크에서 주기적으로 호출하여 새 메시지를 확인합니다' (Call periodically from scheduled tasks to check for new messages). This gives practical guidance on when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, though the purpose naturally differentiates it from sending/modification tools.

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