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, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds context about acceptable document sources (URL or file_id) and caption length limits, but doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling beyond '전송 성공 메시지 또는 에러'. With annotations covering safety, this adds moderate value.

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 with a clear purpose statement followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though the Returns section could be more specific. It's front-loaded with the main action.

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 a mutation tool with annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by Returns), the description is mostly complete. It explains parameters well and states the return is a success/error message, but lacks details on error types or response format. Sibling context is 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 fully compensates by explaining all parameters in detail: chat_id, document (URL or file_id), caption (optional, max 1024 chars), and parse_mode (Markdown/HTML, default Markdown). It adds meaning beyond schema types, though it doesn't cover nested structures (none exist).

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 ('텔레그램 채팅에 파일(문서)을 전송합니다') with the resource (Telegram chat) and distinguishes from siblings by specifying it sends documents/files rather than other media types like photos, videos, or messages. The title annotation '텔레그램 파일/문서 전송' reinforces this.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'URL 또는 file_id 사용 가능' and listing parameters, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like telegram_send_photo or telegram_send_video. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., bot permissions) or exclusions is provided.

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