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 write operation but not destructive. The description adds that it sends a photo to a chat, which aligns with annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if the photo fails to send beyond the generic '에러' (error) mention.

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 a purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first explains what the tool does, the Args detail parameters, and Returns indicates outcome. It could be slightly more concise by integrating parameter details into a single paragraph.

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 (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to detail return values beyond mentioning '전송 성공 메시지 또는 에러' (success message or error). It covers the essential purpose and parameters adequately, though it lacks context on error conditions or usage examples.

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 carries full burden. It provides clear semantics for all parameters: chat_id identifies the chat, photo can be URL or file_id, caption is optional with max length, and parse_mode has specific options. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 with a specific verb ('전송합니다' - send) and resource ('사진' - photo) in the first sentence. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying it's for photos only, unlike other send_* tools for different media types (animation, audio, document, etc.).

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 '텔레그램 채팅에' (to Telegram chat) and that URL or file_id can be used, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like telegram_send_message for text or telegram_send_media_group for multiple media. No guidance on prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios is provided.

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