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 doesn't contradict these annotations. It adds that this sends content to a Telegram chat, which provides context about the target system. However, it lacks additional behavioral details like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens if the chat_id is invalid.

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 exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and uses clear terminology. Every element of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 this is a write operation (annotations show readOnlyHint=false) with 6 parameters and an output schema exists, the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does at a high level but lacks details about when to use it, error handling, or behavioral nuances. The existence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation, but more context about the Telegram-specific behavior would be helpful.

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% (parameter descriptions are in Korean but counted as 0% in context signals), so the description carries full burden. The description mentions '장소(위치+이름+주소)' which maps to latitude/longitude (위치), title (이름), and address (주소), covering 3 of the 6 parameters. It doesn't mention chat_id, foursquare_id, or the specific parameter structure (nested under 'params'). Baseline would be lower, but partial coverage of core parameters brings it to adequate.

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 ('장소(위치+이름+주소)' - venue with location+name+address) to a specific destination ('텔레그램 채팅' - Telegram chat). It distinguishes from siblings like telegram_send_location (which sends only coordinates) by specifying it sends a full venue with name and address. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools like telegram_send_contact.

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. There are multiple sibling tools for sending different types of content (location, contact, message, etc.), but the description doesn't indicate when a venue is preferred over a simple location or contact. No prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with similar tools are mentioned.

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