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 '랜덤 애니메이션' (random animations), which suggests unpredictable outcomes, but doesn't detail side effects like message visibility, rate limits, or authentication needs beyond what annotations 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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Efficient with no wasted words, though slightly vague on specifics like parameter usage.

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 but indicated), the description needn't cover return values. It adequately explains the tool's purpose for a simple action with 1 parameter and non-destructive annotations, though could benefit from more behavioral 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%, so the schema lacks parameter descriptions. The tool description mentions '주사위/슬롯 등' (dice/slot etc.) and '이모지' (emoji) in the schema, but doesn't explain parameter meanings like chat_id or emoji options beyond what's minimally implied. With 1 parameter and low coverage, it partially compensates but leaves gaps.

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' - sends) and resource ('텔레그램 채팅' - Telegram chat) with specific examples ('주사위/슬롯 등 랜덤 애니메이션' - dice/slot random animations). It distinguishes from siblings like send_message or send_photo by specifying it sends animated random content rather than text or media files.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_message for text or send_sticker for static stickers. The description implies usage for sending random animations but doesn't specify scenarios (e.g., games, random selection) or exclusions.

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