Check whether Telegram is logged in and as whom, reporting both watcher and server sessions so you can diagnose failed alerts or reads.
Check whether Telegram is logged in, and as whom.
Reports both sessions: the watcher's (the one that must be logged in for monitoring to work) and this server's (needed only for the read tools). Call this before anything else if alerts or reads are failing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers meaningfully: it explains that two sessions are inspected, that the watcher session is required for monitoring, and that this server's session is only for read tools. For a zero-parameter read-only check the safety profile is essentially self-evident via 'Check', so nothing critical is missing.
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?
Front-loads the core purpose in the first clause, then adds only the two-session context and the call condition. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition of the tool name.
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 is the only source of return-value semantics, and it supplies them by naming the two sessions and their roles. It does not spell out the exact status values or failure shapes, but for a trivial status check this is nearly complete.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning to add or omit. The description appropriately spends its words on what is reported rather than on inputs.
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 specific verb+resource (check Telegram login status) and goes further by specifying the two distinct sessions it reports and what each one governs. An agent can distinguish this diagnostic from the sibling login_* and monitor_status tools without opening any schema.
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?
Gives an explicit triggering condition: 'Call this before anything else if alerts or reads are failing.' It does not name alternative tools or describe when-not-to-call, but the failure-diagnosis context is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.