telegram_foldersList Telegram chat folders with their included and excluded peers. Folders without explicit peers are rule-based.
List the account's chat folders, with the peers each one includes and excludes. A folder with no explicit peers is rule-based (e.g. all non-contacts).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it explains the returned structure (peers included and excluded) and the important edge case that a folder with no explicit peers is rule-based, which affects how results should be interpreted.
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 sentences, no waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the interpretive nuance placed second. Every sentence earns its place.
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 usefully conveys the return structure and the rule-based case. It does not cover ordering, empty-folder handling, or whether counts are included, but for a zero-parameter read tool the coverage is close to 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 schema imposes no semantic burden. The description adds nothing about parameters because there are none to describe; baseline 4 applies.
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 (List) and resource (the account's chat folders) and immediately clarifies what each entry contains (included/excluded peers). It is clearly distinct from siblings like telegram_list_chats, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.
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 telegram_list_chats or the many other chat/messaging tools. The second sentence explains output interpretation, not when-to-invoke context, so an agent gets no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.