TelegramLens

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

telegram_messages

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve original Telegram messages with link previews and optional link-body excerpts. Filter by channel, hours, and message count to drill down into specific conversations and narratives.

Instructions

원문 메시지를 그대로 조회합니다(drill-down).

글마다 link_content(글에 붙은 링크의 제목·설명, 발췌 유무)가 붙습니다.

Args: channel: 채널 username(@ 제외). 생략 시 전체 채널. hours: 시간 범위(시간). 기본 6. limit: 최대 메시지 수. 기본 30. link_body: true 면 링크 본문 발췌(최대 2,000자)까지 싣습니다. 기본 false(제목·설명만).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hours`	No
`limit`	No
`channel`	No
`link_body`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedv0.7.0Sep 19, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / channel / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- removedInput schema / properties / channel / default
```
Removed value: -null
```
- addedInput schema / properties / channel / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / hours / default
```
Removed value: -6
```
- removedInput schema / properties / limit / default
```
Removed value: -30
```
- addedInput schema / properties / link_body
```
Added value: +{
+  "title": "Link Body",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
First observedv0.4.3Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds behavioral details: it returns original messages with link_content, and explains link_body parameter behavior (including character limit). It doesn't contradict annotations. Since annotations cover safety, description adds useful context about return structure and parameter behavior, but doesn't describe pagination or ordering. Score 3.

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?

Description is concise, front-loaded with purpose, then a note about link_content, then a clean Args list. No wasted words. Score 5.

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?

Given 4 parameters, 0 required, and an output schema, description covers all parameters with defaults and behavior. It doesn't mention ordering or pagination, but that's not necessary for calling correctly. It's sufficient for an agent to use correctly. Score 4.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so description carries full burden. It explains each parameter: channel (with format and default behavior), hours (default 6), limit (default 30), link_body (meaning and default). This is explicit and complete. Score 5.

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?

Description states a specific verb (조회합니다 - retrieves) and resource (원문 메시지 - original messages), with a drill-down hint. It also mentions the link_content attachment, which distinguishes it from search or timeline tools. Clear purpose, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance. It doesn't mention alternatives or exclusions. The description implies it's for viewing original messages, but doesn't state when to prefer it over telegram_search or telegram_timeline. Score 2.

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