bot_get_meVerify the BALE_BOT_TOKEN and retrieve the connected bot's ID, username, and display name.
Check BALE_BOT_TOKEN and show the bot's id, username and name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Input schema / titleRemoved value: -"bot_get_meArguments"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "title": "bot_get_meDictOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is low, and the description still adds real context beyond them: it names the credential it inspects (BALE_BOT_TOKEN) and enumerates the fields returned (id, username, name). Since no output schema exists, disclosing the return fields is genuinely useful. It stops short of saying what happens if the token is missing or 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?
A single short sentence with zero filler, front-loading the operation and immediately naming both the credential checked and the values returned. Nothing could be cut without losing information.
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 trivial, no-parameter identity lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it reads, what it returns, and the implicit auth dependency. The only meaningful omission is error behavior when the token is absent or invalid.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-arg tool is 4. Schema coverage is 100% regardless of content.
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 states a concrete verb (check/show) and resource (the bot's own identity: id, username, name), which cleanly separates it from siblings like bot_get_webhook_info or bot_get_chat. It is clear, though it never explicitly names an alternative tool, so sibling differentiation is more implicit than stated.
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?
Usage is only implied: checking BALE_BOT_TOKEN suggests a credential/identity verification context (e.g., confirming the bot is configured correctly before using other tools). There is no explicit when-to-use framing, no exclusions, and no pointer to any alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.