Discover who reacted to a Telegram message and which emoji they chose. Read-only inspection that never adds reactions.
Who reacted to a message, and with which emoji. Read-only — it adds no reaction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| chat | Yes | @username, t.me link, or numeric id from list_chats. | |
| limit | No | Max reactors, capped at 200. Default 100. | |
| message_id | Yes | The message to inspect. |
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 burden and it directly discloses the key safety-relevant trait: 'Read-only — it adds no reaction.' This rules out accidental side effects, though it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects such as auth requirements or rate limits.
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 deliver the core purpose first and then the read-only caveat. There is no filler, no repetition of schema details, and every word adds value.
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 retrieval with three well-documented parameters, the description is nearly sufficient: it covers the outcome and the no-side-effect guarantee. It lacks a small amount of context such as auth prerequisites, but that is minor given the schema coverage and low tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains chat, limit, and message_id. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond implying that message_id targets the message whose reactions are returned, so it meets baseline but doesn't exceed it.
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 is clear about what the tool does, identifying the resource (reactions on a message) and the data returned (who reacted and with which emoji). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings or use an imperative verb, so it stops short of a 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no alternative is named. The intended usage is only implied by the phrase 'Who reacted to a message', so an agent must infer when this is the right tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.