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, confirming this is a write operation that doesn't destroy data. The description adds that it sends location information to a chat, which aligns with the annotations. However, it doesn't provide additional behavioral context such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes '전송 성공' (send success) versus errors beyond what's implied by the return statement.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose statement, Args with parameters, and Returns. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information. The front-loaded purpose statement is clear, though the parameter listing could be more integrated rather than in a separate Args block.

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 (sending location data), annotations cover safety aspects, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Returns: str'), the description is somewhat complete. It explains the action and parameters but lacks usage guidelines and richer behavioral context. The presence of output schema means return values don't need detailed explanation, but more operational guidance would help.

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 in the schema are minimal. The description compensates by listing parameters (chat_id, latitude, longitude) with brief explanations and examples in the Args section, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't fully detail parameter constraints or usage nuances, leaving some 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 tool's purpose: '텔레그램 채팅에 지도 핀(위치 정보)을 전송합니다' (Send a map pin/location information to a Telegram chat). This specifies the verb ('전송합니다' - send) and resource ('지도 핀' - map pin/location). It distinguishes from siblings like telegram_send_message or telegram_send_photo by focusing specifically on location data, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with telegram_send_venue which also involves location.

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 when to choose this over telegram_send_venue (which also sends location with venue details) or other messaging tools, nor does it specify any prerequisites or contextual constraints for sending locations in Telegram chats.

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