Telegram MCP Server & Channel Monitor

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, which aligns with a 'send' operation. The description adds that it sends animations specifically (GIF/silent MP4), providing some context beyond annotations, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or response behavior.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action. Efficiently conveys the purpose without unnecessary words, though it could be more structured with additional context.

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 has an output schema (not provided here) and annotations cover basic hints, the description is minimally complete for a send operation. However, it lacks details on error conditions, return values, or usage context, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, but the description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's implied by the tool name. It mentions GIF/MP4 animations, which relates to the 'animation' parameter, but doesn't explain other parameters like chat_id, caption, or parse_mode. With no schema descriptions, the baseline is low, but the description offers minimal compensation.

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 action ('전송합니다' - send) and resource ('텔레그램 채팅에 GIF 또는 무음 MP4 애니메이션' - GIF or silent MP4 animation to Telegram chat). It distinguishes from siblings like telegram_send_photo or telegram_send_video by specifying animation content, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all media-sending siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like telegram_send_video or telegram_send_media_group. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate or what prerequisites exist (e.g., chat access, file formats).

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