Telegram MCP Server & Channel Monitor

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating this is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds that it sends contacts to Telegram chats, which is consistent with annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens after sending (e.g., message visibility, notifications).

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 that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the essential action and target.

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 (which handles return values), the description's main gaps are parameter documentation and usage guidance. With 0% schema coverage and 5 parameters, the description should explain what each parameter does, but only partially covers two. For a write operation with multiple parameters, this is insufficient for an agent to use it correctly without guessing.

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%, meaning parameter descriptions are entirely missing from the schema. The tool description mentions '연락처(전화번호+이름)' which only covers phone_number and first_name parameters, ignoring chat_id, last_name, and vcard. With 5 parameters total and no schema documentation, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('연락처(전화번호+이름)' - contact with phone number+name) with specific scope ('텔레그램 채팅에' - to Telegram chat). It distinguishes from sibling tools like telegram_send_message or telegram_send_location by specifying contact sending, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all send_* siblings beyond the contact type.

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 (like chat access), comparison with other contact-sharing methods, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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