Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
kotlogramme

kotlogramme

by J0s3f
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

List chat folders

telegram_list_folders
Read-onlyIdempotent

List Telegram chat folders to see which chats are pinned to, included in, or excluded from each folder.

Instructions

Lists the account's chat folders with the chats pinned to, included in and excluded from each.

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_folders"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.11.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by describing the shape of the result (folders plus their pinned/included/excluded chats, which matters given no output schema), but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or how chats are identified.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence containing the verb, the resource, and the return structure, with no filler or repetition. Nothing in it could be cut without losing information.

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 zero-argument read-only listing tool, the definition covers what is returned and the annotations cover safety, which is close to sufficient. It falls short only on secondary details like result format and pagination behaviour that an agent might still want.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter-level meaning is missing because no inputs exist.

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 chat folders') and goes further by naming the contents of each folder entry: pinned, included, and excluded chats. That is enough to separate it from telegram_list_chats and other list siblings, though it does not name any of them explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to a related alternative such as telegram_list_chats for enumerating chats directly. The agent must infer that this tool is the right entry point for discovering folder organization rather than plain chat lists.

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