Retrieve cached Telegram messages from local SQLite storage using filters for chat, limit, and message ID.
Read messages from the local SQLite cache.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chat | No | Chat ID, @username, or omitted for TELEGRAM_DEFAULT_CHAT_ID. | |
| limit | No | Messages to return. | |
| order | No | Message order. | |
| after_id | No | Only messages newer than this message ID. | |
| before_id | No | Only messages older than this message ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description merely says it reads from local cache. Does not disclose whether it requires network, whether cache is real-time, or any side effects. For a read tool, more transparency is needed.
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?
Single sentence is concise, but it lacks important details. Conciseness alone does not make it well-structured for agent use.
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?
No output schema exists, 5 optional parameters, and description does not explain return format or how to effectively use parameters like after_id and before_id. Incomplete for a tool with moderate complexity.
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% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description states 'Read messages from local SQLite cache' – clear verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like search_messages or get_thread_context, which also involve reading messages.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_messages or sync_history. Agent gets no context about appropriate scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.