Retrieve recent Telegram chats with unread messages, optionally limited to a specified count.
List recent Telegram chats that have unread messages.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "telegram_get_unread"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds useful context about filtering to recent unread chats. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as ordering, pagination, whether unread state is affected, or authentication requirements, though the annotation already covers the read-only safety profile.
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?
The description is a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler or repetition. The core action and filtering criterion are front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.
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 simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand the primary purpose and invoke the tool appropriately. It does not specify output shape or 'recent' semantics, but the low complexity and readOnlyHint mitigate the gap.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. While the parameter name and constraints are somewhat self-explanatory, the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage by clarifying the parameter's meaning, default, or effect on the result set.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Telegram chats') with a clear filter ('that have unread messages'), making its purpose immediately understandable. It also inherently distinguishes itself from sibling tools like telegram_list_chats and telegram_get_chat by focusing specifically on unread 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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as telegram_list_chats or telegram_search_chats. The intended usage is only implied by the description and tool name, with no exclusions, conditions, or preference signals.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.