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, covering basic safety. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies the tool sends messages (a write operation, consistent with annotations), provides a concrete example of button usage, and mentions the return value ('전송 성공 메시지 또는 에러' - success message or error). This enhances understanding of behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 clear purpose statement, example, and parameter breakdown. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. However, the example is detailed, which is helpful but slightly reduces conciseness. Overall, it is front-loaded and efficient, with each section earning its place.

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 messages with buttons), the description is complete. It covers purpose, parameters (with examples), and return values. Annotations provide safety hints, and the output schema exists (though not detailed in the description, which is acceptable). The description adequately supplements structured fields without redundancy.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It compensates excellently by detailing all parameters in the 'Args' section: chat_id, text, buttons (with a comprehensive example), and parse_mode (including default value). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, fully documenting parameter purposes and usage.

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: 'URL 링크 또는 콜백 버튼이 붙은 텔레그램 메시지를 전송합니다' (sends Telegram messages with URL links or callback buttons). It specifies the exact action (send), resource (Telegram message), and distinguishing feature (with buttons), differentiating it from sibling tools like telegram_send_message which presumably sends plain messages.

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 buttons, suggesting it should be used when interactive elements are needed. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like telegram_send_message or other send_* tools, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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