Update the API token's IP whitelist by providing newline-separated IP addresses to control which IPs can access your Telegram Ads cabinet.
Set the IP whitelist for the cabinet API token. Newline-separated IPs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| ip_list | Yes |
| 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 convey readOnly=false, idempotent=false, and destructive=false. The description adds that the whitelist uses newline-separated IPs, but it does not disclose whether the operation replaces or appends to an existing whitelist or whether the confirm parameter is required for the change to take effect. No annotation contradiction is present.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The main action and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a necessary formatting detail.
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 mutating settings tool, the description is not complete enough: it leaves the confirm parameter undocumented, does not state whether the whitelist is replaced or extended, and does not explain post-conditions or the effect of the change. The output schema helps with return shape but cannot compensate for missing operational semantics.
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. It explains what ip_list means and its format, but it says nothing about the confirm boolean parameter, whose purpose is entirely unclear from both the schema and the description. An agent cannot determine why confirm exists or when to set it to 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?
Description states a clear verb ('Set'), a specific resource ('IP whitelist for the cabinet API token'), and even the input format ('Newline-separated IPs'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools because none of them target API token settings.
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 the tool is for configuring allowed IP addresses for the cabinet API token, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions. Sibling tools are unrelated, so the lack of alternatives mentioned is not a major shortcoming, but the guidance remains implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.