List your Telegram OSINT alert rules with hit counts, and optionally include disabled rules, to review which message filters are active and how often they match.
List alert rules with their hit counts.
Args: include_disabled: include rules that are currently turned off.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| include_disabled | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation and it adds that hit counts are returned, but it says nothing about permissions, result size, or ordering. Annotations covering the safety profile would have lowered the bar; here the coverage is only partial.
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?
Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the argument explanation following. No filler, though the 'Args:' formatting is slightly verbose for a single optional flag.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a simple read-only list tool with one optional boolean, the description is nearly sufficient, missing only a note on default behavior (default is true) and usage context.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does by explaining that include_disabled brings in rules that are 'currently turned off' — clarifying what 'disabled' means beyond the bare boolean. Only one parameter exists and it is adequately explained.
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 and resource (list alert rules) plus a distinguishing detail (their hit counts), which separates it from the similarly named list_alerts and list_criteria. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, so it stops short of 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternative tools such as list_alerts or preview_rule. The agent must infer the context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.