Revoke and regenerate the Telegram Ads cabinet API token to invalidate a compromised or outdated IP-whitelist token and issue a secure replacement.
Revoke and regenerate the cabinet API token (IP-whitelist token, not ads cookies).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / confirmAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "title": "Confirm",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal destructiveness (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). The description adds useful context by stating that the action both revokes and regenerates the token and that it applies specifically to the IP-whitelist token. It does not contradict annotations, though it could disclose more about consequences.
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 a single focused sentence with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, and the parenthetical clarification adds precision without bloat.
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 destructive mutation tool, the description leaves critical operational details out: how the 'confirm' parameter is used, whether false makes the call a no-op, and what happens to existing integrations using the old token. The annotations and output schema help, but the description alone is not sufficient for an agent to safely invoke this destructive action.
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 must compensate for the single 'confirm' parameter, but it never mentions it. The agent is left to infer that 'confirm' gates a destructive operation, and the description does not explain what happens when confirm is false or true.
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 identifies the action ('revoke and regenerate') and the resource ('cabinet API token'), and it narrows scope with 'IP-whitelist token, not ads cookies'. This distinguishes it from cookie/session-related tools and leaves no ambiguity about what it operates on.
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?
It clearly states what the tool does and explicitly excludes ads cookies, giving the agent a sense of when not to use it. However, it does not name any alternative tool or provide more explicit when-to-use guidance beyond the token type distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.