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 to a Telegram chat, which provides context about the target system. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral details like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens on success.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with no wasted words. Every word contributes to the core purpose. The structure is front-loaded with the essential action and target.

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?

While there's an output schema, the description is inadequate for a tool with 4 parameters and 0% schema coverage. For a write operation that sends media to a messaging platform, the description should address more about behavior, constraints, and typical usage patterns. The presence of an output schema doesn't compensate for the lack of parameter guidance.

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?

The description provides zero information about parameters. With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters (chat_id, video_note, duration, length), the description doesn't compensate at all. It doesn't explain what '둥근 비디오' (round video) means in practice or how parameters interact.

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 ('둥근 비디오 메시지' - round video message) with specific target ('텔레그램 채팅' - Telegram chat). It distinguishes from siblings like 'telegram_send_video' by specifying the round video format. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar sending tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'telegram_send_video' or 'telegram_send_animation'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate. No mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases.

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