save_api_settingsSets the newline-separated IP whitelist for a Telegram Ads cabinet API token; this destructive change requires confirmation unless the gate is open.
Set the newline-separated IP whitelist for the cabinet API token. Destructive; use only when the user asks. confirm=true unless gate=open.
| 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?
The description explicitly labels the tool 'Destructive', while the annotations declare destructiveHint=false. These are directly conflicting signals about whether the operation destroys or overwrites data, so the agent cannot trust either source. (The added 'confirm=true' requirement is useful, but the core behavioral claim contradicts the structured metadata.)
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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the destructive warning and the confirmation rule are both immediate. The 'gate=open' clause is wasted and misleading text, which is the only structural blemish.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But for a mutating settings tool, the description leaves the contradiction with destructiveHint unresolved and references an undefined gate condition, so the agent still lacks a coherent picture of the operation's effects.
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 carry parameter meaning. It does clarify that ip_list is newline-separated and that confirm should be true, but it never explains what confirm=false does and invents a 'gate' parameter that does not exist, which risks an invalid call.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Set the newline-separated IP whitelist for the cabinet API token.' The scope and data format are clear, and no sibling tool overlaps with API settings, so an agent can identify the operation without ambiguity.
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?
'Use only when the user asks' gives an explicit usage restriction, and 'confirm=true' gives a precondition, which is more than most siblings offer. However, 'unless gate=open' references a condition/parameter that does not exist in the schema, so the guidance is partially unusable as written.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.