Receive incoming Telegram bot updates via long polling, using offset, limit, timeout, and allowed update types to control which events are fetched.
Receive incoming updates via long polling.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| timeout | No | ||
| allowed_updates | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'long polling' behavior, which is useful, but it does not disclose that the call waits for updates, returns an array of Update objects, or that webhook setup would conflict with polling.
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, direct sentence of five words. It is immediately clear and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.
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?
With no output schema, the description should explain what the function returns, but it does not. It also omits important context like long-polling timeout behavior and the exclusivity with webhooks. The tool is simple, but the description is too sparse to fully inform the agent.
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 four parameters (limit, offset, timeout, allowed_updates) with 0% description coverage. The description provides no explanation of these parameters. While the names are somewhat self-explanatory in the context of polling, the description does not add any semantic value beyond the schema.
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 tool's function: 'Receive incoming updates via long polling.' It uses a specific verb ('receive') and resource ('incoming updates'), and the method ('long polling') distinguishes it from webhook-related alternatives like set_webhook.
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 phrase 'via long polling' implies this is the polling method for receiving updates, but it does not explicitly explain when to prefer it over webhooks or mention that webhook and polling are mutually exclusive. No alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.