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, but the description adds valuable context: it specifies that bot admin permissions are required, which is crucial behavioral information not covered by annotations. It also mentions the return value (success message or error), though the output schema handles this. No contradictions with annotations.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though the translation to English might slightly affect flow. Every sentence adds value.

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 moderate complexity (mutation with permissions), the description is quite complete: it covers purpose, permissions, parameters, and return behavior. The output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. It could benefit from more explicit sibling differentiation, but it's largely adequate.

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 the full burden. It provides clear semantics for all parameters in the Args section: chat_id (채팅 ID), message_id (고정할 메시지 ID), and disable_notification (알림 없이 고정 여부). This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('고정합니다' - pins) and resource ('채팅에서 특정 메시지' - a specific message in a chat), and it distinguishes from siblings like 'telegram_unpin_message' (unpins) and 'telegram_delete_message' (deletes). The mention of bot admin requirement adds specificity.

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 context for when to use this tool (to pin a message in a chat, requiring bot admin permissions). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'telegram_unpin_message', but the context is sufficient for basic differentiation.

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