Telegram MCP Server & Channel Monitor

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable context about the admin permission requirement, which isn't captured in annotations. However, it doesn't describe rate limits, error conditions beyond mentioning '에러' (error), or what happens when only_if_banned=false and the user isn't banned.

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 perfectly structured with a clear purpose statement, prerequisite note, organized parameter documentation, and return value explanation. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with zero wasted words. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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?

For a mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description does an excellent job explaining parameters and returns. The output schema exists (Returns section mentions string response), so the description appropriately doesn't detail return values. It covers the essential context but could benefit from more behavioral details about edge cases.

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. The Args section provides clear descriptions for all three parameters (chat_id, user_id, only_if_banned) with the boolean's default value explained. However, it doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., what constitutes valid Telegram IDs) or the implications of only_if_banned=false.

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 specific action ('해제합니다' - unban) and target resource ('그룹/채널에서 차단된 사용자' - banned user in group/channel). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'telegram_ban_user' by being the inverse operation. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context about when to use this tool - when you need to unban a user in a Telegram group/channel. It explicitly mentions the prerequisite '봇이 관리자 권한 필요' (bot needs admin permissions). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among siblings.

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