Read the newest messages your bot has received. IMPORTANT: Telegram's Bot API has no "fetch chat history" endpoint. A bot only ever sees messages sent directly to it (DMs), or messages in groups where its privacy mode is off or it's an admin — and only NEW messages received after this tool starts checking, never anything sent before that.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max messages to return (default 10, max 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral constraints: there is no chat-history endpoint, only messages received after the tool starts checking are visible, and privacy-mode/admin requirements govern group visibility. This is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.
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 core purpose is front-loaded, and the caveat is flagged with 'IMPORTANT' to draw attention. It is slightly dense but every sentence carries necessary behavioral 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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the crucial operational limitations an agent must know. It could briefly note the return shape, but the essential correctness information is present.
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 100% and the single 'limit' parameter already documents its default (10) and max (100). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.
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 specific verb and resource (read newest messages the bot received) and implicitly scopes it away from siblings like telegram_send_message and telegram_get_chat. An agent can tell this is an inbound-read tool without inspecting the schema.
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 explains the operational context in which the tool works (bot only sees DMs, or group messages where privacy mode is off or it's an admin, and only new messages). It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the when-it-applies guidance is strong.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
