telegram_channel_posts_getList recent posts from a public Telegram channel. Groups are not supported. Accepts a handle. Returns a list (use cursor when paginated).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cursor | No | Opaque pagination cursor from a previous response. Omit for the first page. | |
| handle | Yes | Telegram public username (channel or group), with or without leading @. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat safety. It adds value by disclosing that groups are not supported (a behavioral constraint not in annotations) and that pagination is handled via a cursor. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradiction.
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 three short sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the action, exclusions, and pagination. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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 simple read-only list tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, the constraint on groups, and pagination. However, it leaves ambiguity around 'recent' (time window, limits) and the schema contradiction creates a gap. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.
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?
The schema has 100% coverage, so the description isn't required to explain parameters, but it introduces a conflict: the schema's handle description says 'channel or group' while the tool description says 'Groups are not supported.' This contradiction can confuse an agent about the semantics of the handle parameter. The description corrects the schema but does so in a way that undermines clarity.
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 states the action: 'List recent posts from a public Telegram channel.' It specifies the resource (posts), the scope (public channel), and differentiates from siblings like telegram_channel_post_get (singular) and telegram_channel_get. The explicit exclusion of groups further clarifies intent.
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 provides context (public channel, groups not supported) that helps decide if the tool is applicable, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like telegram_channel_post_get or mention when to prefer this over other list tools. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, leaving some ambiguity.
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.
Each tool is clearly scoped to a specific platform and action (e.g., facebook_post_get vs instagram_post_get). Descriptions explicitly differentiate similar tools across platforms, and within-a-platform tools like tiktok_search_videos_list vs tiktok_search_hashtag_list have clear disambiguation notes.
All 167 tools follow a strict `platform_resource_action` pattern (e.g., youtube_video_comments_list). No mixing of styles—snake_case throughout, with consistent verb ordering (get, list, search, etc.).
The server has 167 tools, which is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the broad multi-platform scope justifies many tools, this extreme number makes the tool surface overwhelming and difficult for an agent to navigate efficiently.
The tool set covers a wide range of platforms and operations including profile retrieval, post/video fetching, comments, search, transcripts, and ad library access. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no Facebook events or LinkedIn messaging), but the surface is comprehensive for a read-only data aggregation use case.