List allowed Telegram conversations with IDs, titles, message counts, last activity, and sync age. Filter by title fragment to find archived threads for evidence retrieval.
List allowed chats: id, title, message count, last activity, sync age.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Title fragment. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The phrase 'allowed chats' hints at a permission scoping not otherwise documented, but it is never explained, and nothing is said about pagination, ordering, or what 'sync age' means as a field.
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?
It is one short sentence with no filler, which is good, but the trailing field list ('id, title, message count, last activity, sync age') is a bare enumeration that is not front-loaded and mixes return-shape details into a purpose statement.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description should explain the scoping ('allowed'), ordering, result limits, and how 'sync age' is expressed. None of that is present, and the sibling 'search' is left un-contrasted, so an agent cannot confidently choose between them.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'query' parameter, so the schema already explains the title-fragment filter. The description adds nothing about query syntax or matching behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a verb (List) and resource (chats), but the word 'allowed' is unexplained and the appended field list reads like a partial output enumeration rather than a purpose statement. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling 'search', which likely also handles chats.
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?
No indication of when to use this versus search, read, stats, or export. The 'query' parameter implies filtering, but the description never states that a query is the way to narrow the list, nor when unfiltered listing is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.