Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
kotlogramme

kotlogramme

by J0s3f
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

List contacts

telegram_list_contacts
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists your Telegram account's saved contacts with ID, name, @username and phone number, returning up to a set limit of results.

Instructions

Lists the account's saved contacts with id, name, @username and phone number.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "telegram_list_contacts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many contacts to return.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.11.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds the useful detail of which fields come back per contact, but says nothing about ordering, pagination beyond the limit, or whether blocked/deleted accounts appear.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single economical sentence that front-loads the operation and then the payload. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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, listing the returned fields is exactly the right compensating detail. The only remaining gap is how the limit interacts with results (truncation or paging), which is minor at this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single limit parameter is fully documented in the schema with default and bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description does not mention the limit or explain truncation behavior, adding nothing beyond the structured field.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Lists the account's saved contacts") and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not name or contrast with telegram_search_contacts, so the differentiation is only implied by the word "saved".

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"Lists the account's saved contacts" implies a bulk enumeration with no query filter, which hints at when to prefer it over a search tool, but there is no explicit when/when-not statement or named alternative. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools