zaytsv-bot-graph-mcp

dry_run

Run a Telegram bot funnel scenario in test mode without publishing. Simulate command, callback, or text actions to verify behavior before going live.

Instructions

Прогнать сценарий без публикации. kind: command|callback|text.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "graphId": "<graphId>",
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "dry_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes
`value`	Yes
`graphId`	Yes
`presetTags`	No
`fromUsername`	No
`presetVariables`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.11.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the core action and doesn't explain side effects (does it execute commands or just validate?), permissions, or return format. The mention of 'kind: command|callback|text' suggests possible execution, but the description lacks crucial behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded, but it is under-specified. The single sentence conveys the core purpose but omits essential parameter and usage details, making it too brief to be fully helpful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, invocation patterns, or expected behavior, making it insufficient for a tool of this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond restating the 'kind' enum which is already in the schema. No explanation is given for graphId, value, presetTags, fromUsername, or presetVariables, leaving the agent to infer their semantics from names alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action: 'Run the scenario without publishing' (Прогнать сценарий без публикации). This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like publish_graph, which publishes. The included 'kind' field hint adds specificity without confusion.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context: the tool is for running a scenario in a non-publishing mode, implying a testing or dry-run use case. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, the 'without publishing' phrase strongly signals when to use this tool over publish_graph or other graph management tools.

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