telegram_get_contactsFetch saved Telegram contacts, including IDs, names, usernames, and phone numbers, to support messaging, lookup, or sync workflows.
List saved contacts (id, name, username, phone).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
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=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the returned-field list but says nothing about pagination or ordering despite a limit parameter, and nothing about rate limits or how many contacts are typically returned. Beyond the annotations it contributes little behavioral context.
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?
One short sentence with the resource and return fields front-loaded; no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to earn a 5 given the undocumented limit parameter.
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, and the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which is the main thing an agent needs. However, the limit parameter and pagination behavior are left unexplained, and with no annotations covering parameters, that gap leaves the definition only minimally 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?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the single parameter (limit, 1-1000, default 100) is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not mention the limit or its pagination role, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (saved contacts) plus the returned fields (id, name, username, phone), so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It is distinguishable from telegram_search_users, but the description never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts saved contacts with searched users.
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 prerequisites (e.g. logged-in session), and no alternative named. An agent choosing between this and telegram_search_users or telegram_list_blocked 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.